Allowed

Jajneswar Rajkhowa and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC12 Jun 2019AB/512/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court converted the interim anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners on 22.02.2019 into absolute bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court noted the petitioners' full cooperation with the investigation and absence of adverse reports from the Investigating Officer.

What did the court decide?

Interim anticipatory bail granted vide order dated 22.02.2019 is made absolute.

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

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010038882019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB 512/2019

¶5

1:JAJNESWAR RAJKHOWA AND ANR. S/O KHARGESWAR RAJKHOWA R/O LTG-3 (B), SECRETARIAT COMPLEX, RUKMINIGAON, RANGA MANCHA PATH, P.S. DISPUR, DIST. KAMRUP(M), ASSAM

¶6

2: MD. SOHRABUDDIN AHMED S/O LATE KUTUBUDDIN AHMED NO. 2 SALBARI NOONMATI GUWAHATI-29 P.O. AND P.S. NOONMATI DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSA

¶7

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

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J I BORBHUIYA

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶10

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Date : 12-06-2019

¶13

Heard Mr. J.J. Borbhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. N.J. Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

¶14

Page No.# 2/2

¶15

By this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioners, namely, 1. Jajneswar Rajkhowa and 2. Md. Sohrabuddin Ahmed, have prayed for granting them pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Panbazar PS Case No. 115/2019 under Sections 380 of the IPC.

¶16

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

¶17

Mr. J.J. Borbhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are on interim pre-arrest bail granted vide order, dated 22.02.2019, and that the petitioners appeared before the I.O. and got their statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. recorded.

¶18

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 22.02.2019, the petitioners appeared before the I.O. and got their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.. The petitioners are co-operating in the investigation and there is no adverse report against the petitioners from the I.O. The case diary reveals no justifiable reason for custodial interrogation of the petitioners in the interest of further investigation of the case.

¶19

Therefore, the interim anticipatory bail granted in favour of the petitioners, vide order, dated 22.02.2019, is hereby made absolute, subject to the conditions (i) that the petitioners shall appear before the I.O. of the case as and when required for the purpose of investigation; (ii) that the petitioners shall not hamper or tamper with the investigation in any manner; and (iii) that the petitioners 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.

¶20

Return the case diary.

¶21

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

¶22

JUDGE

¶23

Comparing Assistant

Jajneswar Rajkhowa and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jajneswar Rajkhowa 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

Dipa Devi Chetry and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Pratim Dowarah Vs the State of Assam

Palash Pratim Bora Vs the State of Assam

Md. Rafe @ Md. Rafi and Anr. Vs the Union of India

Nipen Kakati Vs the State of Assam

Mastofa Ahmed Vs the State of Assam