Allowed

Ruhul Amin v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC1 Apr 2019Bail Appln./206/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court granted bail to the accused-petitioner in a trial for cheating under Section 397 IPC, holding that further custodial detention was unnecessary after 87 days of imprisonment despite pending investigations. Bail was granted on Rs. 25,000 bond with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Accused petitioner released on bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 25,000 with two suitable sureties of like amount.

Ruhul Amin Vs the State of Assam — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010019862019

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : Bail Appln. 206/2019

¶6

1:RUHUL AMIN S/O- MD. JARIF UDDIN, VILL- BHAKURADIA, P.S- NAGARBERA, DISTKAMRUP, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

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

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A PARAMANIK Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶10

BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA

¶11

:: O R D E R ::

¶12

01-04-2019

¶13

This is an application made under Section 439 Cr.P.C. , seeking bail by the accused-petitioner, namely, Md. Rahul Amin, in connection with Boko Police Station Case No. 868/2018 , registered under Section 397 of the IPC .

¶14

The case diary produced has been perused.

¶15

Heard Mr. A Paramanik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. NK Kalita, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State.

¶16

The accused-petitioner has been in custody for 87 days as on date with effect from 04-01-2019.

¶17

The investigation is likely to take some more time to complete. The availability of the case diary before this Court is indicative of the fact that the charge-sheet is unlikely to be filed within the next three days. Considering the length of detention of the accused-petitioner in custody, this Court is of the view that further custodial detention of the accused-petitioner is not necessary for the purpose of investigation of the case.

¶18

Page No.# 2/2

¶19

Accordingly, the accused-petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail in connection with the case aforementioned on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- with two suitable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Amingaon.

¶20

The direction for bail is further subject to the conditions that the accused-petitioner:

¶21

(a) shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Amingaon, without prior written permission from him;

¶22

(b) shall not tamper with the evidence of the case;

¶23

(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. In terms of the above, this bail application stands disposed of.

¶24

Return the case diary.

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

Comparing Assistant

Ruhul Amin v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ruhul Amin 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

Ranjit Gogoi Vs the State of Assam

Biswajit Gogoi Vs the State of Assam

Nitul Das Vs the State of Assam

Jabbar Ali and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Nur Jamal Vs the State of Assam

Rabin Ch. Kumar and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam