Allowed

Jayanta Konwar v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC2 Apr 2019AB/303/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court, per Justice Hitesh Kumar Sarma, considered a pre-arrest bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. regarding an FIR under IPC Sections 341 and 326. The court found the injuries simple and custodial interrogation unnecessary, granting bail and making interim bail absolute while correcting a police station error in the case reference.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted; interim pre-arrest bail order made absolute; police station name in the order corrected.

Jayanta Konwar Vs the State of Assam — Cheating and Forgery | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010024602019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB 303/2019

¶5

1:JAYANTA KONWAR

¶6

R/O. NOTUN MURHOTIYA GAON, P.S. BORPATHAR, DIST. GOLAGHAT.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

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

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M BISWAS 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, Jayanta Konwar, apprehending arrest in connection with Borpathar Police Station Case No. 160/2018 , registered under Sections 341/326 of the IPC .

¶14

I have perused the petition including the copy of the FIR.

¶15

The case diary produced, has been perused.

¶16

Heard Mr. M Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Assam.

¶17

On perusal of the materials in the case diary, particularly, the injury report, it appears that the injury sustained by the victim is simple in nature, caused by sharp weapon. That being so, an offence under Section 326 of the IPC is not attracted. However, this view is tentative and confined to this anticipatory bail application only.

¶18

Page No.# 2/2

¶19

That being so, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not considered necessary for the purpose of investigation of the case. Accordingly, he is granted the pre-arrest bail. On the other hand, the petitioner has been availing interim pre-arrest bail. He has not misused the liberty granted to him.

¶20

That being so, this is a fit case for grant of the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner, vide order dated 08-02-2019, is made absolute by this order with the same terms and conditions.

¶21

However, it is made clear that in the interim order, dated 08-02-2019, passed in this case, the case is stated to be Golaghat Police Station Case No. 160/2018, in fact, the case ought to have been Borpathar Police Station Case No. 160/2018, the same is corrected accordingly. The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.

¶22

Return the case diary.

¶23

JUDGE

¶24

Comparing Assistant

Jayanta Konwar v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayanta Konwar 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

Farida Begum Vs the State of Assam

Rup Ray Vs the State of Assam

Ananta Baruah @ Ananta Boruah Vs the State of Assam