The Court considered an application for pre-arrest bail. Finding the FIR allegations unsupported and doubtful, the Court held custodial interrogation unwarranted and granted bail.
Petitioner allowed to go on pre-arrest bail of Rs. 20,000 with surety of like amount. Case diary returned.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010004382018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB 84/2018
1:AMINUR HOQUE S/OLT. ABDUL GOFUR ALI VILL AND P.O. BHATIPETLA, P.S. TAMARHAT DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM
VERSUS 1:THE STATE OF ASSAM GUWAHATI
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A SHEIKH
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN
ORDER
Date : 13-02-2018
By this application under Section 438 of the CrPC accused petitioner Aminur Hoque sought pre-arrest bail in connection with South Tamarhat PS case No. 237/2017 u/s 498(A)/313/307/34 of the IPC, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 4587/2017.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned additional public
prosecutor for the State.
Perused the record. On scrutiny of the record it reflects that although the informant has raised allegation against the accused petitioner/the husband that on
Page No.# 2/2
18.04.2017, she was ousted from their house by administering drugs for abortion and pouring kerosene upon her but even after such, she remained silent and she filed FIR later on 01.11.2017 with a declaration that with the hope of restoring the conjugal life there was delay in filing the FIR. But such statement of the informant appears to be not supported by the other evidence in the case diary. The learned counsel for petitioner has referred about the two advocates notices (vide annexure- II & III) issued to the informant as on 08.09.2017 and 16.10.2017, directing the informant for restoring the conjugal life but she not responded. On the next, it has been submitted that the said informant with a view to secure divorce from her husband made a declaration of divorce as on 13.06.2017 that she herself decided to go for abortion with her parent as the accused petitioner is has no capacity to maintain her vide annexure-IV after all such affairs the present FIR has been filed which is itself clouded by shadow of doubt. Considering all above, the custodial interrogation of the accused petitioner appears to be unwarranted. Accordingly the accused petitioner Aminur Hoque is allowed to go on pre-arrest bail of Rs. 20,000/with the surety of like amount in the event of his arrest to the satisfaction of arresting authority in connection with aforesaid case. The petition is disposed of. Return the case diary.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted to the accused who awaits interrogation as allegations against him appear unsupported by evidence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Aminur Hoque
State of Assam
Rumi Kumari Phukan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
