Petitioner sought pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a Section 366 IPC case alleging property rivalry. The court found no necessity for custodial interrogation and made a prior interim bail order absolute.
Order granting interim bail made absolute under the same terms and conditions.
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
GAHC010136342019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB 1815/2019
1:ARVIND NAHATA
S/O LATE KAMAL SINGH NAHATA, R/O R.K.C. ROAD, ARUNODOI PATH, NARAYAN NAGAR, KUMARPARA, P.S.-BHARALUMUKH, GUWAHATI-9, DIST-KAMRUP(M), ASSAM
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A CHAUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIR ALFAZ ALI
ORDER
Date : 16-09-2019
Heard Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.J. Dutta, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. Also perused the case diary produced today.
By this application u/s 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioner Arvind Nahata has prayed for pre-arrest bail in connection with Hajo P.S. Case No. 457/2019 under Section 366 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B.K. Mahajan submits that there are rivalry between the parties in respect of the properties and the informant lodged the present FIR as a counter blast to the two FIRs lodged by the petitioner against the husband of the
Page No.# 2/2
informant.
The petitioner was already granted interim bail by this Court by order dated 18-06-2019 and in the meantime, he has been interrogated by police.
Having considered the materials reflected in the case diary and the documents annexed with the petition as well as the progress of investigation, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary, and as such, the petitioner deserves to be given the benefit of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the order dated 18-06-2019 granting interim bail to the petitioner is hereby made absolute under the same terms and conditions.
Send back the case diary.
This bail application stands disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner deserves pre-arrest bail in a Section 366 IPC case given no necessity for custodial interrogation.
Whether the interim bail order dated 18-06-2019 should be made absolute.
Whether the rivalry between parties and retaliatory nature of the FIR are relevant for granting bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
ARVIND NAHATA
THE STATE OF ASSAM
MIR ALFAZ ALI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
