Petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC, claiming a settlement with the victim. Court rejected the application as a successive one without fresh merit since the victim opposed it and no new grounds emerged. Decision: dismissed.
Prayer for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC stands rejected as the application is without merit.
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
GAHC010236382018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB 3354/2018
1:DINESH PEGU
S/O MIDHYA NATH PEGU, R/O VILLAGE SIKARI, PO GALIBORBALI, PS JONAI, PIN 787060, DIST. DHEMAJI, ASSAM
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY PP, ASSAM
2:SMT. AMBIKA CHARAH (PEGU) W/O DINESH PEGU D/O KARPANG CHARAH VILL-SOMKONG DAMBOK P.O.-SOMKONG P.S.-CIMENCHAPORI DIST-DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN-78706
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A KHANIKAR
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. N.K. KALITA, PP, ASSAM, R 1
MR. N.B.P. SINGHA, R2
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIR ALFAZ ALI
ORDER
Date : 12-02-2019
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A. Khanikar and learned Addl. Public
Page No.# 2/2
Prosecutor for the State/respondent No.1, Mr. N.K. Kalita. Also heard learned counsel N.B.P. Singha, who entered appearance on behalf of the informant/respondent No. 2
By this second successive application u/s 438 CrPC, the petitioner Sri Dinesh Pegu has prayed for pre-arrest bail apprehending arrest in connection with Jonai P.S. Case No. 97/2018 registered under Sections 417/376/313/34 IPC.
This Court had the occasion to peruse the case diary while considering the first bail application. Having noticed incriminating materials in the case diary this Court was not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. In this second bail application, the petitioner came up with a ground that in the meantime, there was a move to settle the matter amicably and both the petitioner and the alleged victim girl agreed to live together and the prayer for bail has been made primarily on such premise. However, pursuant to the notice issued to the respondent No. 2/informant, the learned counsel representing the respondent No. 2 has already entered appearance as indicated above. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, Mr. Singha submits that there was no such development, rather, he opposed the prayer for bail.
In view of the above, when the prayer for pre-arrest bail was already rejected by this court earlier on merit and there is no fresh ground to reconsider the prayer for pre-arrest bail, this second application for pre-arrest bail is without merit and accordingly stands rejected.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a second successive bail application deserves reconsideration upon assertions of attempted amicable settlement when opposed by the victim.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dinesh Pegu
The State of Assam
Smt. Ambika Charah (Pegu)
Mir Alfaz Ali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
