Allowed

Surjya Baruah and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC24 Jul 2019AB/1266/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application prayed for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending arrest in cheating and criminal conspiracy cases. The petitioner-builder alleged to have failed to handover documents. The court, after perusing the case diary, held that custodial interrogation was not necessary. It allowed the bail application, making the interim bail orders absolute.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail allowed; interim pre-arrest bail orders granted on 02.05.2019 are made absolute.

Surjya Baruah and Anr. Vs the State of Assam — Cheating and Forgery | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010091792019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB 1266/2019

¶5

1:SURJYA BARUAH AND ANR. S/O- LATE NIRMAL CHANDRA BARUAH, R/O- FLAT NO. 3-A, 3RD FLOOR, CHANAKYA PATH, HOUSE NO. 5, ABC, GUWAHATI, DIST.- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM.

¶6

2: SMTI. MODHUSMITA HANDIKOI BARUAH W/O- MR. SURJYA BARUAH R/O- FLAT NO. 3-A 3RD FLOOR CHANAKYA PATH H/NO. 5 ABC GUWAHATI DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

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

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B D KONWAR SR. ADV.

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶11

BEFORE

¶12

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIR ALFAZ ALI

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 24-07-2019

¶15

Page No.# 2/2

¶16

By this application under Section 438 Cr.PC, the petitioners, namely, 1. Sri Surjya Baruah and 2. Smti. Modhusmita Handikoi Baruah have prayed for pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Bhangagarh P.S. Case No.91/2019 under Section 420/120(B) IPC.

¶17

Heard Mr. S. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. P.P. for the state respondent.

¶18

Case diary called for is received and perused.

¶19

The allegation made in the FIR was that the petitioners are builders, who constructed some flats on the land of the informant and three flats were provided to the informant. But, the builder did not handover the relevant documents relating to the said flats, for which the informant is facing problems.

¶20

The petitioners were granted interim pre-arrest bail and they have been interrogated in the meantime.

¶21

Having considered the materials in the case diary and the nature of accusation made in the FIR, this court is of view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary for the purpose of investigation of the case, and as such, the prayer for pre-arrest bail deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the orders dated 02.05.2019 granting interim pre-arrest bail to the petitioners are hereby made absolute in the same terms and conditions.

¶22

Bail application is disposed of.

¶23

Return the case diary.

¶24

JUDGE

¶25

Comparing Assistant

Surjya Baruah and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surjya Baruah and Anr. 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

Pabitra Kumar Gogoi Vs the State of Assam

Pintu Das Vs the State of Assam

Bishnu Prasad Vs the State of Assam

Aibuddin Ali and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Anup Bhuyan Vs the State of Assam

Md. Yusuf Ali and Anr. Vs the State of Assam