Application under Section 438 CrPC for pre-arrest bail was dismissed. The court noted serious land disputes and threats against the victim. It held thorough investigation and custodial interrogation were necessary, making it unfit for bail.
Application for pre-arrest bail rejected and dismissed.
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
GAHC010214482019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB 2961/2019
1:AFTAR HUSSAIN AND ANR.
S/O. ABDUL HANIF, VILL. BORCHORARPAR (PURBOGOOL), P.S. PATHARKANDI, DIST. KARIMGANJ, ASSAM.
2: AZMOL HUSSAIN S/O. ABDUL BARI VILL. BORCHORARPAR (PURBOGOOL) P.S. PATHARKANDI DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY PP, ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S MUNIR
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN
ORDER
Date : 26-11-2019
Heard Mr. S. Munir, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners and Mr. N Kalita, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent.
This is an application, under Section 438 CrPC, seeking pre-arrest bail of the accused-
Page No.# 2/2
petitioners, namely, 1) Aftar Hussain and 2) Azmol Hussain, in connection with Patharkandi PS Case No. 209/2019 registered under Section 120B)/506/302/201/34 IPC.
Considered the submission of learned counsel for both sides.
Today, case diary has been produced and the same is gone through.
It has been revealed from the testimony of wife of the victim and others that there are serious land dispute between the parties and on the day of occurrence also there was threatening on the part of accused persons that victim will be killed.
After going through the materials in the case diary, it reveals that thorough investigation is needed to unearth the matter and custodial interrogation of the accused-petitioners may be necessary to reach a conclusion.
This Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the accused-petitioners. Accordingly, prayer for pre-arrest bail is rejected.
Consequently, the application stands dismissed.
Return the case diary.
JUDGE
Milansinha/
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted to accused persons implicated in a serious criminal case involving land disputes and threats.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Aftar Hussain and Anr.
State of Assam
Rumi Kumari Phukan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
