Partly allowed

Sofiquddin Ahmed and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC3 Jan 2019AB/3639/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court heard a pre-arrest bail application filed by Sofiquddin Ahmed and Mrs. Asmin Begum under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court granted bail to Petitioner No. 1 but rejected it for Petitioner No. 2 based on sufficient incriminating materials in the case diary.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to Petitioner No. 1 upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 15,000; bail rejected for Petitioner No. 2.

Sofiquddin Ahmed and Anr. Vs the State of Assam — Anticipatory Bail | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010256712018

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB 3639/2018

¶5

1:SOFIQUDDIN AHMED AND ANR.

¶6

S/O MR. JUMARUDDIN AHMED, R/O AMGURI GAON, PO METEKA, PS SIVASAGAR, DIST. SIVASAGAR, ASSAM

¶7

2: ASMIN BEGUM W/O MR. SARIFUL ALI R/O AMGURI GAON PO METEKA PS SIVASAGAR DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSA

¶8

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

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P HAZARIKA

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶11

BEFORE

¶12

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA

¶13

:: O R D E R ::

¶14

03-01-2019

¶15

This is an application made under Section 438 Cr.P.C ., seeking pre-arrest bail by the petitioners, namely, 1. Md. Sofiquddin Ahmed and 2. Mrs. Asmin Begum apprehending arrest in connection with Sivasagar Police Station Case No. 997/2018 , registered under Sections 365/384/34 of the IPC . I have perused the petition including the copy of the FIR annexed therewith.

¶16

The case diary produced, has been perused.

¶17

Page No.# 2/2

¶18

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

¶19

On perusal of the case diary, it appears that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner No. 2 named above. Therefore, considering the nature of offence and her involvement, her prayer for pre-arrest bail is rejected.

¶20

So far as the petitioner No. 1 is concered, there is no such material requiring his custodial interrogation; therefore, his prayer for pre-arrest bail is granted.

¶21

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 Rs.15,000/- , with a suitable surety each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of arresting authority.

¶22

The direction for pre-arrest bail is subject to the conditions that the petitioner No. 1:

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

(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. The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.

¶26

Return the case diary.

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Comparing Assistant

Sofiquddin Ahmed and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sofiquddin Ahmed and Anr. 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

Raju Topno Vs the State of Assam

Abdul Khalek Vs the State of Assam

Aniruddha Dutta Vs the State of Assam

Safer Ali @ Sabur Bepari Vs the State of Assam

Sudhir Choudhury Vs the State of Assam

Bap Das Vs the State of Assam