Allowed

Namit Mohan Barman and 2 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC5 Apr 2019AB/219/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants pre-arrest anticipatory bail to three petitioners facing charges under Sections 498(A) and 417 IPC. The court held that custodial interrogation is not essential, allowing the case to be investigated without detention.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted conditional on furnishing bond, appearing within seven days, and not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

Namit Mohan Barman and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam — Cheque Dishonour | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010017162019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB 219/2019

¶5

1:NAMIT MOHAN BARMAN AND 2 ORS.

¶6

S/O SRI HARAMOHAN BARMAN, R/O OBERON APARTMENT, LAMB ROAD, HEM BARUAH NAWJAN PATH, PS LATASIL, DIST. KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM

¶7

2: HARMOHAN BARMAN S/O LATE K. BARMAN R/O OBERON APARTMENT LAMB ROAD HEM BARUAH NAWJAN PATH PS LATASIL DIST. KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM

¶8

3: RUPLEKHA BARMAM W/O SRI HARAMOHAN BARMAN R/O OBERON APARTMENT LAMB ROAD HEM BARUAH NAWJAN PATH PS LATASIL DIST. KAMRUP (METRO) ASSA

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

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

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K BHATTACHARJEE

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶13

Page No.# 2/3

¶14

BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA

¶15

:: O R D E R ::

¶16

05-04-2019

¶17

This is an application made under Section 438 Cr.P.C ., seeking pre-arrest bail by the petitioners, namely, 1. Sri Namit Mohan Barman, 2. Sri Haramohan Barman and 3. Smti Ruplekha Barman, apprehending arrest in connection with All Women Police Station Case No. 153/2018 , registered under Sections 498(A)/417 of the IPC .

¶18

I have perused the petition including the copy of the FIR and the documents annexed therewith.

¶19

The case diary received, has been perused.

¶20

Heard Mr. K Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. TK Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Assam.

¶21

On perusal of the case diary, it does not appear that there is any such materials collected by the Investigating Police Officer necessitating their custodial interrogation. It also reveals that without keeping the petitioner in custody, the case can be investigated into by the Investigating Police Officer. That being so, the petitioners are granted the privilege of prearrest bail.

¶22

On the other hand, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 have been availing interim pre-arrest bail. They have appeared before the Investigating Police Officer in accordance with the order granting interim pre-arrest bail to them. Their statements have already been recorded and they are not alleged to have misused the liberty granted to them.

¶23

Accordingly, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, vide order dated 29-01-2019, is made absolute by this order with the same terms and conditions.

¶24

So far as the petitioner No. 1, afore named, is concerned, on perusal of the materials in the case diary, this Court is of the view that this is not a case where his custodial interrogation is essential. Therefore, the petitioner No. 1 aforementioned is also granted the privilege of prearrest bail.

¶25

Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the petitioner No. 1 above named, in connection with the case aforementioned, he shall be released on furnishing bail bond of

¶26

Page No.# 3/3

¶27

Rs.10,000/- , 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 No. 1:

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

(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.

¶31

The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶32

Return the case diary.

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Comparing Assistant

Namit Mohan Barman and 2 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Namit Mohan Barman and 2 Ors. 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

Parimal Debnath Vs the State of Assam

Bellal Hussain and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Bahauddin Hazari Vs the State of Assam

Mamtaz Ali and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Lokojit Das Vs the State of Assam

Bhaskar Das Vs the State of Assam