On a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Gauhati High Court held that custodial interrogation was not necessary for further investigation. The court granted the interim protection bail made absolute, subject to existing conditions.
The earlier interim pre-arrest bail made absolute; bail application disposed of.
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
GAHC010255622019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB 3641/2019
1:SOFIA RAHMAN AND ANR.
W/O LATE MAKIBUR RAHMAN, R/O BIRUBARI MAZID NAGAR, P.O.GOPINATH NAGAR, P.S.-PALTAN BAZAR, GHY-16, ASSAM
2: MARJINA BEGUM W/O MAINUL HUSSAIN R/O G.S. ROAD ULUBARI P.O.-ULUBARI P.S.-PALTAN BAZAR DIST-KAMRUP (M) ASSA
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S MUNIR
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
Date : 27-11-2019
Heard Mr. S. Munir, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
By this application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioners, namely, 1) Sofia Rahman, and 2) Marjina Begum, have prayed for pre-arrest bail, apprehending their arrest, in connection with Azara PS Case No. 690/2019, registered under Section 406/420, IPC.
Page No. 2/2
Case diary as called for, has been received.
Perused the contents of the FIR lodged on 13.10.2019 by the informant, who is the brother of the 2 (two) petitioners. A gift deed was executed in respect of plot of land belonging to the family, by the father in the name of the mother, when the father was ill and bed-ridden. It is, however, alleged that the said gift deed was executed at the instance of the present 2 (two) petitioners.
I have perused the materials available in the case diary. Pursuant to the interim order dated 24.102.019, the petitioners have appeared before the Investigating Officer of the case and have been cooperating with the investigation of the case. The case diary reveals that the statement of the mother namely, Musstt. Sureja Begum has also been recorded.
Upon consideration of the materials made available in the case diary and the nature of the allegations made in the FIR, this Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the present petitioners is not necessary for the purpose of further investigation of the case.
In view of the same, the earlier interim protection of pre-arrest bail granted to the 2 (two) petitioners by the order dated 24.10.2019 is hereby made absolute, subject to the conditions already indicated in the said order dated 24.10.2019.
The bail application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether prior custody interrogation is necessary for further investigation in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sofia Rahman
Marjina Begum
The State of Assam
Manish Choudhury
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
