The Gauhati High Court heard an application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The Court rejected the petition after the prosecution highlighted the recovery of stolen motorcycles from the petitioner's house and prima facie evidence of theft.
The pre-arrest bail petition stands rejected and the Local Chief Registrar was sent back.
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
GAHC010265352019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB 3818/2019
1:MOYNAL HOQUE
S/O MOGAL HUSSAIN, VILL-RAKHALDUBI, P.S.-BAGUWAN, DISTGOALPARA (ASSAM)
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. B GOGOI
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR
ORDER
Date : 02-12-2019
Heard Mrs. B. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State respondent.
By this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioner namely, Moynal Hoque has prayed for granting pre-arrest bail apprehending arrest in connection with Bilasipara P.S. Case No. 691/19 under Section 379 of the IPC.
Mrs. B. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner is a daily wage earner in Meghalaya and in the month of July last, he came to his home. During his period of stay at home, his friend Sahidul Islam had kept a new Royal Enfield (without number plate) at his home
Page No.# 2/2
saying that he was going out of station which was later on recovered by police while searching home in connection with Jogighopa P.S. Case No. 271/2019.
Mr. B, Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the case diary reveals that the stolen motorcycle was recovered from the house of the petitioner. There is evidence to show that the petitioner committed the theft.
Perusal of the case diary reveals that the seized motorcycle was recovered in course of conducting house search of the petitioner. The case diary further prima facie reveals that the petitioner, along with another, committed theft of the said motorcycle. The petitioner was also arrested in connection with Jogighopa P.S. Case No. 271/2019 u/s 379 of the IPC pertaining to theft of another motorcycle.
In view of the above, this Court finds that it is not a fit case to grant the privilege of prearrest bail.
The pre-arrest bail petition stands rejected.
Send back the L.C.R.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was fit to be granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in view of evidence suggesting participation in theft.
Whether the recovery of stolen property from the petitioner's premises established a prima facie case warranting rejection of bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
MOYNAL HOQUE
THE STATE OF ASSAM
AJIT BORTHAKUR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
