Allowed

Ritul Ali v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC10 Oct 2019Bail Appln./3169/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order granted bail in an NDPS case. The court held that further custodial interrogation was unnecessary after the petitioner had been detained for two months. Bail was granted on furnishing a bond and undertakings.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement of accused-petitioner on bail by furnishing bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of like amount subject to three conditions regarding jurisdiction, investigation, and influencing witness

Ritul Ali Vs the State of Assam — Narcotics (NDPS) | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010252962019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Bail Appln. 3169/2019

¶5

1:RITUL ALI

¶6

SON OF AJULLA ALI, R/O- VILL.- SIMALIBARI, P.S.- BAIHATA CHARIALI, DISTRICT- KAMRUP, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM.

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K DEURI

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶11

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Date : 10-10-2019

¶14

Heard Mr. M.K. Deuri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H. Sarma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶15

By this application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, namely, Ritul Ali, is seeking bail in connection with Baihata Chariali P.S. Case No. 317/2019, registered under Section 21(a)/29 of the NDPS Act.

¶16

Considering the length of detention suffered by the petitioner since his arrest on 13.08.2019, this Court is of the view that further custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be required.

¶17

Page No.# 2/2

¶18

Accordingly, the accused-petitioner, named above, enlarged on bail in connection with Baihata Chariali P.S. Case No. 317/2019, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- with 2 (two) suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rangia on the following condition:

¶19

(i) The accused-petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rangia without prior information to the Investigating Officer of the case,

¶20

(ii) The accused-petitioner shall not hamper with the investigation, or tamper with the evidence of the case, and

¶21

(iii) The accused-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.

¶22

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

¶23

JUDGE

¶24

Comparing Assistant

Ritul Ali v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritul Ali 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

Smti Parashmoni Bora and Anr. Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Uttam Kumar Chakraborty Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Hiten Sarma Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Digvijay Roy Vs the State of Assam

Firoj Ali Vs the State of Assam

Md. Yakub Ali @ Ekub Vs the State of Assam