Allowed

Sitangshu Das Purkayastha v. the State of Nagaland

Gauhati HC3 May 2019AB/1/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition for anticipatory bail under section 438 CrPC, the Gauhati High Court allowed the applicant. He faced charges for leaking classified police files and inciting mischief. The court viewed him as incarcerated on these grounds and granted bail on April 3, 2019, with attached conditions.

What did the court decide?

Interim Anticipatory Bail order made absolute with conditions attached from a previous interim order dated 01.04.2019.

Sitangshu Das Purkayastha Vs the State of Nagaland — Cheating and Forgery | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶3

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

¶4

KOHIMA BENCH

¶5

AB No. 1(K)/2019

¶6

Shri Sitangshu Das Purkayastha

¶7

….. Applicant

¶8

Versus -

¶9

The State of Nagaland

¶10

… Respondent

¶11

BEFORE

¶12

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶13

ADVOCATES

¶14

For the petitioner : Mr. A. Zho : Mr. Atsu : Mr. C. Losou : Mr. W. Marhu For the State respondent : Mr. K. Wotsa, P.P

¶15

ORDER

¶16

03.05.2019

¶17

Heard Mr. W. Marhu, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. K. Wotsa, learned P.P.

¶18

AB No. 1(K)/2019

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

This is an application under section 438 CrPC praying for grant of Anticipatory Bail, in connection with R.C. No. 178/2018 under section 505 1(b)/120B IPC, read with section 66C of the IT Act, 2000, registered in the Cyber Crime Police Station, PHQ, Kohima.

¶21

The applicant’s counsel submits that the applicant, who is working as PS to the Addl.DGP, PHQ, Kohima is apprehending arrest on the ground that he had leaked notings in the office files, relating to backdoor appointments made in the Police Department.

¶22

The applicant’s counsel submits that the applicant had already given his statement before the police. The police have also seized his mobile phone and are verifying whether the applicant was the source of the leak of the police files. He submits that the applicant has not been suspended by the authorities till date. He also submits that the applicant is approximately 59 (fifty-nine) years of age. He also submits that as the applicant is innocent of any wrongdoing he should be granted Anticipatory Bail.

¶23

Mr. K. Wotsa, learned P.P. on the other hand prays for rejecting the petition on the ground that the applicant is responsible for leaking information from a classified file and sending it to one person in South India, who released the said information on Whatsapp. He submits that the information released by the applicant’s friend on Whatsapp has promoted an act conducive to public mischief and inciting tribe’s to commit offences against another. He also submits that the applicant’s mobile phone has been sent to the FSL for verification of the contents of the applicant’s mobile.

¶24

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶25

I have also perused the CD, which is produced today.

¶26

After taking into account the submissions made by the parties and the materials in the CD, this Court is of the view that the applicant should be released on Anticipatory Bail. Accordingly, the interim Anticipatory Bail order is

¶27

AB No. 1(K)/2019

¶28

Page 2 of 3

¶29

made absolute. The conditions imposed in the interim order dated 01.04.2019 shall also be conditions attached with the present Anticipatory Bail.

¶30

The petitioner is, accordingly, allowed.

JUDGE

Kagui

AB No. 1(K)/2019

Page 3 of 3

Sitangshu Das Purkayastha v. the State of Nagaland

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sitangshu Das Purkayastha v. the State of Nagaland

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

Nribeni T. Ngullie Vs the State of Nagaland and 4 Ors.

Hughevi Rochil Vs State of Nagaland and 3 Ors.

A.R. Choudhury and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Nagaland and 4 Ors.

The State of Nagaland and 2 Ors. Vs Y. Vangyong and 11 Ors.

State of Mizoram through U/S Home Department, Govt. of Mizoram Vs Lalrammuana and Anr.

M.Zhevili Vs the State of Nagaland and 5 Ors.