Dismissed

Sahera Khatun and 2 Ors. v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC10 Feb 2020AB/122/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court disposed of an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC. Bak |=Jail denied bail to two petitioners found to have sufficient complicity in kidnapping and poisoning. Pre-arrest bail was granted to the third petitioner who was not implicated in the offence.

What did the court decide?

Bail rejected for two petitioners; pre-arrest bail allowed to the third petitioner on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000.

Sahera Khatun and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Anr. — Anticipatory Bail | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010005082020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB 122/2020

¶5

1:SAHERA KHATUN AND 2 ORS.

¶6

W/O TOTA MIA, R/O BHERAGAON, P.O.-JAHARPAM, P.S.-BARPETA, DISTBARPETA (ASSAM), PIN-781376

¶7

2: ELIMA KHATUN @ ELIMA MOLLAH W/O SHAHIDUL ISLAM R/O BHERAGAON P.O.-JAHARPAM P.S.-BARPETA DIST-BARPETA (ASSAM) PIN-781376

¶8

3: JAHIDUL ISLAM S/O TOTA MIA R/O BHERAGAON P.O.-JAHARPAM P.S.-BARPETA DIST-BARPETA (ASSAM) PIN-78137

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

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

¶11

2:ANOWAR HUSSAIN S/O INU MIA R/O VILL-BOGHRANDHA P.S.-BARPETA (ASSAM) PIN-78131

¶12

Page No.# 2/2

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR K BHUYAN

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 10-02-2020

¶18

By this application under Section 438 CrPC, petitioners, namely, 1) Sahera Khatun, 2) Elima Mallik @ Elima Mollah and 3) Jahidul Islam, have sought for pre-arrest bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Barpeta PS Case No. 1832/2019, under Sections 365/328 IPC.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for both the sides.

¶20

Also perused the record, FIR and the Case Diary.

¶21

The victim as well as other witnesses have been examined and all of them have corroborated each other that it was the accused persons, Tota Mia, Sahera Khatun and Elima Mallik, who had kidnapped her from her house and thereafter, administered poisonous substance to her and as a result of which, she turned unconscious and, thereafter, she was recovered from the house of the said Tota Mia.

¶22

Sufficient complicity of the aforesaid accused petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 is made out. Hence, the bail prayer made on behalf of Sahera Khatun and Elima Mallik @ Elima Mollah is rejected.

¶23

However, Jahidul Islam, petitioner No. 3, who is not implicated in the present case is allowed to go on pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, in the event of his arrest in connection with the aforesaid case he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-, with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority with further direction to the petitioner No. 3 to appear before the IO within a period of 15 days from today and he shall cooperate with the investigation of the case.

¶24

Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of.

¶25

Return the Case Diary.

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

Comparing Assistant

Sahera Khatun and 2 Ors. v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahera Khatun and 2 Ors. v. the State of Assam and Anr.

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 Moni Das Vs M/S United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.

Smti Bela Sarkar Vs the United India Insurance Company Limited

M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs MD Samsul Haque and Anr.

Moon Basumatary Vs the State of Assam

Sorhab Ali and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Dipen Kakati Vs the State of Assam