Allowed

Jiten Payeng v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC2 Dec 2019AB/3825/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed the interim anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner in a case under Sections 409/420 IPC. The court made the bail absolute subject to conditions requiring appearance before the investigation officer and cooperation in the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Interim anticipatory bail granted vide order dated 31.10.2019 was made absolute subject to standard conditions.

Jiten Payeng Vs the State of Assam — Bail and Remand | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010264272019

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : AB 3825/2019

¶6

1:JITEN PAYENG

¶7

S/O SRI DEKARAM PAYENG, VILL. DIGHALI, P.O. JAMUGURI PACHALI, P.S. AND DIST. DHEMAJI, ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

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

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 02-12-2019

¶15

Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

¶16

By this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, namely, Sri Jiten Payeng has prayed for granting him pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Dhemaji PS Case No.358/2019 under Sections 409/420 of the IPC.

¶17

Case diary, as called for, is placed before the Court.

¶18

Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submits that the

¶19

Page No.# 2/2

¶20

petitioner is on interim pre-arrest bail granted vide order, dated 31.10.2019, and that the petitioner appeared before the I.O. and his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. got recorded.

¶21

On perusal of the case diary, it is noticed that in terms of the conditions of the interim pre-arrest bail granted vide order, dated 31.10.2019, the petitioner appeared before the I.O. and got his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. The petitioner is co-operating in the investigation and there is no adverse report against the petitioner from the I.O. The case diary reveals no justifiable reason for custodial interrogation of the petitioner in the interest of further investigation of the case.

¶22

Therefore, the interim anticipatory bail granted in favour of the petitioner, vide order, dated 31.10.2019, is hereby made absolute, subject to the conditions (i) that the petitioner shall appear before the I.O. of the case as and when required for the purpose of investigation; (ii) that the petitioner shall not hamper or tamper with the investigation in any manner; (iii) that the petitioner 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.

¶23

Return the case diary.

¶24

With the above directions, the anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

Comparing Assistant

Jiten Payeng v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jiten Payeng 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

Digendra Deb Vs Sankar Karmakar

Jyotishman Bharali Vs Sangita Phukan

Mahesh Kurmi @ Mahato and 2 Ors. Vs Prakash Singh and 2 Ors.

Aijul Hoque @ Ajijul Hoque Vs the State of Assam

Jue Chutia Vs the State of Assam

Moynal Hoque Vs the State of Assam