The Gauhati High Court refused an application for pre-arrest bail (anticipatory bail) under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court held that the materials indicated a planned crime and were not a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail, rejecting the prayer and disposing of the application.
Anticipatory bail application rejected; 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
GAHC010000052019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB 18/2019
1:RAHUL AMIN
S/O KHALEK MIAH, R/O VILLAGE AGDIA PATHAR, PS SARTHEBARI, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A SHEIKH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN
ORDER
Date : 07-03-2019
This is an application made under Section 438 Cr.P.C ., seeking pre-arrest bail by the petitioner, namely, Rahul Amin, apprehending arrest in connection with Gorchuk Police Station Case No.
668/2018 , registered under Sections 381 of the IPC .
I have perused the case diary including the case record.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.
As per FIR, a truck was loaded on 18.11.2018 which contain different articles but the driver of the vehicle was also found missing. During the course of investigation, several looted article were recovered from different persons. From the house of the accused person four bags of blankets were recovered on 17.12.2018. There was no explanation from the accused person for possessing such articles. Case diary reveals that it was a planed crime organized by several persons including the petitioner.
Page No.# 2/2
In view of the materials on record, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail.
Therefore, the prayer for pre-arrest bail made by the petitioner is rejected .
The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.
Return the case diary.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted to the petitioner apprehending arrest under Section 381 IPC.
Whether the materials on record make it a fit case for granting anticipatory bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rahul Amin
State of Assam
Rumi Kumari Phukan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
