Allowed

Nozrul Islam v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC11 Dec 2018AB/2809/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending arrest in a violent pervers case. The court found prima facie incrimination but allowed bail as the petitioner was cooperating and custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Interim pre-arrest bail granted vide order dated 11.10.2018, made absolute subject to conditions of not tampering with evidence and cooperating in investigation.

Nozrul Islam Vs the State of Assam — Bail and Remand | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010201822018

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶4

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : AB 2809/2018

¶6

1:NOZRUL ISLAM

¶7

S/O- LATE NEWAZ ALI, R/O- VILL- KASHORI, P.O- KASHORI, P.S- JURIA, DIST- NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 782124

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MAHMUD

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 11-12-2018

¶15

Heard Mr. M. U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. K. Mishra, learned Addl. PP, Assam.

¶16

By this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, namely, Nozrul Islam has prayed for grant of pre-arrest bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Juria P.S. Case No. 50/2018 under Sections 147/148/149/341/447/326/307 of the IPC (corresponding to G. R. Case No.1193/2018).

¶17

The Case Diary, as called for, is placed before the Court.

¶18

Mr. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the alleged incident had

¶19

Page No.# 2/2

¶20

occurred out of a land dispute between the parties and the role of the present petitioner was not much and in the meantime, out of 8 accused persons, 5 accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court. Therefore, maintaining parity, the case of the petitioner may be considered favorably. Mr. Mahmud further submits that the petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Officer pursuant to the interim pre-arrest bail granted by this Court vide order, dated 11.10.2018, as such, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not warranted.

¶21

Mr. T. K. Mishra, learned Addl. PP submits that the injury report shows that the injured Md. Mukarrim Ali has received multiple stitches on his head, arm and leg and the same was caused by physical assault.

¶22

Scrutiny of the Case Diary reveals abundance of prima facie incriminating materials against the petitioner, however, considering the fact that the petitioner is co-operating in the investigation and has given his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., custodial interrogation may not be warranted. Therefore, the interim pre-arrest bail granted vide order, dated 11.10.2018, is hereby made absolute, subject, of course to the following conditions:-

¶23

(a) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Police Officer or tamper with the evidence of the case;

¶24

(b) that the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation of the case, as and when required.

¶25

Return the Case Diary.

¶26

With the above direction, this bail application stands disposed of.

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Comparing Assistant

Nozrul Islam v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nozrul Islam v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dipak Nag Vs the State of Assam

Babul Malakar Vs the State of Assam

Feddus Ali Vs the State of Assam

Pradip Laskar and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Wahab Ali and 5 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Sri Sanjoy Kumar Bhowmik Vs the State of Assam