Allowed

Monsur Ali @ Monisur Rahman v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC16 May 2019AB/149/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Gauhati High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a theft case. The Court noted that while CCTV footage incriminated the accused, an affidavit stated the dispute was settled. Bail was granted subject to conditions, including appearance before the Investigating Officer and non-interference.

What did the court decide?

The accused shall be released on pre-arrest bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 15,000 with one surety.

Monsur Ali @ Monisur Rahman Vs the State of Assam — Anticipatory Bail | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010011192019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB 149/2019

¶5

1:MONSUR ALI @ MONISUR RAHMAN S/O HOSSAIN ALI VILL- TIAMARI PT.II (MADRASSAGAON) P.O. GAURIPUR P.S. GAURIPUR DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM PIN - 783301

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

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

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M R KHANDAKAR

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶10

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Date : 16-05-2019

¶13

Heard Mr. MR Khandakar, learned counsel for the accused petitioner and Mr. B Sharma, learned Addl.P.P., Assam, appearing for the State respondent.

¶14

By this application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the accused petitioner, namely, Monsur Ali @ Monisur Rahman has prayed for granting him pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Gauripur PS Case No. 624 of 2018 under Section 447/379 of the IPC.

¶15

Page No.# 2/3

¶16

Case diary, as called for, is placed before the Court.

¶17

Mr. MR Khandakar, learned counsel for the accused petitioner submits, that the accused transferred fuel (diesel) on the instruction of the informant Md. Ramjan Ali from one truck to the containers. However, due to previous grudge, he filed the FIR alleging that the petitioner had committed offence of theft of diesel of 50/60 Liters from the truck. According to Mr. Khandakar, the case was the result of misunderstanding only. Mr. Khandakar also submits that by a petition, dated 17.08.2018, the informant in writing informed the officer-in-charge of the Gauripur Police Station that the incident was settled by on intervention of the village elders and there is no further dispute between them.

¶18

Mr. B Sharma, learned Addl.P.P., Assam, submits that in the video footage of the CCTV Camera, the criminal act of the petitioner was recorded and there is also other prima facie evidence showing his such criminal act. Mr. Sharma, however, submits that from the case records, it is noticed that a notice was issued to the informant by registered post with A/D which was duly served on him, but he has not turned up to contest the application.

¶19

The case relates to commission of theft of 50/60 liters of fuel (diesel) from the truck of the informant. Perusal of the case diary reveals that there is incriminating materials against the accused petitioner. However, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and as it appears from the copy of the petition, dated 17.08.2018, addressed to the officer-in-charge of the Gauripur PS to the effect that the instant case has been amicably settled between the informant and the petitioner, this Court finds that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary in the interest of investigation.

¶20

In view of above reasons, it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, namely, Monsur Ali @ Monisur Rahman, he shall be released on pre-arrest bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.15,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject, of course, to the following conditions:

¶21

(i) That the petitioner shall appear before the I.O. within 10 days from today and shall co-operate in the investigation;

¶22

Page No.# 3/3

¶23

(ii) That the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement,

¶24

threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and

¶25

(iii) That the petitioner shall not commit any similar offence, of which he is accused or suspected of the commission.

¶26

Return the case diary.

¶27

With the above directions, the anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Monsur Ali @ Monisur Rahman v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monsur Ali @ Monisur Rahman 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

Ajoy Singh and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Paban Manta Vs the State of Assam

Ritupon Gogoi @ Apu Vs the State of Assam

Mongli Choudhury Vs the State of Assam

Hamidul Islam and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Ahmed Rubul Hussain and Anr. Vs the State of Assam