Allowed

Farida Begum v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC2 Apr 2019AB/7/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C, holding that custodial interrogation was not necessary. Bail was subject to standard conditions including appearance before the police, non-interference with investigation, and no inducement to witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted pre-arrest bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.20,000/- with a suitable surety.

Farida Begum Vs the State of Assam — Anticipatory Bail | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010000192019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB 7/2019

¶5

1:FARIDA BEGUM W/O- LATE JAINUDDIN, R/O- VILL KAWAIMARI 11 NO. BLOCK, P.SSARTHEBARI, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

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

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R SIKDAR

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶10

BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA

¶11

:: O R D E R ::

¶12

02-04-2019

¶13

This is an application, made under Section 438 Cr.P.C ., seeking pre-arrest bail by the petitioner, namely, Farida Begum, apprehending arrest in connection with Sarthebari Police Station Case No. 438/2016 , (corresponding to GR Case No. 5944/2016), registered under Sections 120(B)/304(B)/34 of the IPC .

¶14

The case diary produced, has been perused including the FSL report and the statement of the witnesses.

¶15

Heard Mr. AR Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. SH Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Assam.

¶16

On perusal of the materials in the case diary it appears that the allegation is basically against the husband of the deceased. The petitioner is stated to be in complicity with the husband of the deceased.

¶17

Page No.# 2/2

¶18

Whatever it may be, considering the materials available in the case diary, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. Therefore, the petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the petitioner above named, in connection with the case aforementioned, he shall be released on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- , with a suitable surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of arresting authority. The direction for pre-arrest bail is subject to the conditions that the petitioner:

¶19

(a) shall appear before the Investigating of concerned Police Station, within seven days from today and shall co-operate with the investigation;

¶20

(b) shall not hamper with the investigation, or tamper with the evidence of the case;

¶21

(c) shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, 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. The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶22

Return the case diary.

¶23

JUDGE

¶24

Comparing Assistant

Farida Begum v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Farida Begum 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

Jabbar Ali and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Nur Jamal Vs the State of Assam

Ruhul Amin Vs the State of Assam

Rup Ray Vs the State of Assam

Ananta Baruah @ Ananta Boruah Vs the State of Assam

Jayanta Konwar Vs the State of Assam