Partly allowed

Rofiqul Islam and 4 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC8 Mar 2019AB/243/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A pre-arrest bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.PC by five accused in an IPC case. The Gauhati High Court rejected bail for the first accused specifically implicated by the victim, granted it to the remaining four who were not implicated, and made interim bail absolute for the latter on conditions.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted to accused-petitioners Nos. 2-5; prayer rejected for accused-petitioner No. 1. Interim bail of Nos. 3-5 made absolute.

Rofiqul Islam and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam — Anticipatory Bail | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010017532019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB 243/2019

¶5

1:ROFIQUL ISLAM AND 4 ORS. S/O. HANIF ALI, VILL. PAIKARKANDI, P.S. SUKCHAR, DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR, ASSAM-783128.

¶6

2: SOFIQUL ISLAM

¶7

S/O. HANIF ALI VILL. PAIKARKANDI P.S. SUKCHAR DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM-783128.

¶8

3: RAMESH ALI

¶9

S/O. HANIF ALI VILL. PAIKARKANDI P.S. SUKCHAR DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM-783128.

¶10

4: RAJU SK

¶11

S/O. HANIF ALI VILL. PAIKARKANDI P.S. SUKCHAR DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM-783128.

5: SAIFUL ISLAM

S/O. HANIF ALI

Page No.# 2/3

VILL. PAIKARKANDI P.S. SUKCHAR DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM-783128

¶16

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

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A Z AHMED

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Date : 08-03-2019

¶22

This is an application, filed under Section 438 of the Cr.PC. seeking pre-arrest bail of the accused-petitioners, namely, 1. Rofiqul Islam, 2. Sofiqul Islam, 3. Ramesh Ali, 4. Raju Sk and 5. Saiful Islam, in connection with Sukchar PS Case No. 03/2019 registered under Sections 143/147/148/149/294/447/354(C)/323/324/376/511/506 of the IPC.

¶23

Heard Mr. AZ Ahmed, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners as well as Mr. TK Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Assam.

¶24

Perused the case diary produced before this court including the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.PC.

¶25

In her such statement, the victim has specifically implicated the accused-petitioner No. 1, Rofiqul Islam and therefore, his prayer for pre-arrest bail stands rejected.

¶26

So far the other accused-petitioners are concerned, there is no implicating evidence collected against them and even the victim herself has stated in her aforesaid statement that the accusedpetitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, namely, Sofiqul Islam, Ramesh Ali, Raju Sk and Saiful Islam are falsely implicated.

¶27

That being so, the accused-petitioner No. 2, Sofiqul Islam will appear before the Investigating Police Officer within a period of 7 (seven) days from today, and, in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one suitable surety of the

¶28

Page No.# 3/3

¶29

like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, on the following conditions:-

¶30

The petitioner No. 2 shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the aforesaid police station, without prior written permission from its officer-in-charge,

¶31

The petitioner No. 2 shall not hamper with the investigation, or tamper with the evidence of the case, and

¶32

The petitioner No. 2 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.

¶33

On the other hand, the accused-petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 Ramesh Ali, Raju Sk and Saiful Islam , while availing interim pre-arrest bail, appeared before the Investigating Police Officer and have also got their statements recorded. They are not alleged to have misused the liberty granted to them. That being so the accused-petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 are granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail.

¶34

Accordingly, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the accused-petitioner Nos. 3 to 5, on 31.01.2019, is made absolute on the same terms and conditions.

¶35

This petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶36

Return the case diary.

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

Comparing Assistant

Rofiqul Islam and 4 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rofiqul Islam and 4 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

Madan Bauri Vs the State of Assam

Sopikul Islam Vs the State of Assam

Sangeeta Gupta and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Jadav Chutia @ Chetia Vs the State of Assam

Abdul Barek Sk. Vs the State of Assam

Dhiraj Gupta Vs the State of Assam