Allowed

Kakang Lochung v. the State of Ap

Gauhati HC23 Nov 2020AB/134/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court dismissed four anticipatory bail applications filed by Kakang Lochung, John Khora, Tame Kino, and Dudu Kino. The court allowed the bail, holding that the petitioners did not deserve detention as the incident arose from a private financial dispute.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners shall be released on pre-arrest bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 each with a surety of like amount.

Kakang Lochung Vs the State of Ap — Anticipatory Bail | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC040007832020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB 134/2020

¶5

1:KAKANG LOCHUNG

¶6

S/O SHRI TAKHYO LOCHUNG , RESIDENT OF ALC LINE, PO/PS SEPPA, DISTRICT EAST KAMENG, SEPPA, AP.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF AP

¶9

TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, AP. GAUHATI HIGH COURT.

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : S K Deori

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP

¶12

Case No. : AB 135/2020

¶13

1:JOHN KHORA

¶14

S/O TARO KHORA, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF MEBUA -II, EAST KAMENG , PO/PS SEPPA, DISTRICT EAST KAMENG AP.

¶15

VERSUS

¶16

1:THE STATE OF AP

¶17

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, AP . GAUHATI HIGH COURT.

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : S K Deori

¶19

Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP

¶20

Case No. : AB 136/2020

¶21

Page No.# 2/4

¶22

1:TAME KINO

¶23

S/O LOGO KINO RESIDENT OF MEBUA CAMP,PO/PS SEPPA, DISTRICT EAST KAMENG, SEPPA, AP.

¶24

VERSUS

¶25

1:THE STATE OF AP

¶26

TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, AP AND GAUHATI HIGH COURT.

¶27

Advocate for the Petitioner : S K Deori

¶28

Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP

¶29

Case No. : AB 137/2020

¶30

1:DUDU KINO

¶31

S/O PINZANG KINO, RESIDENT OF MEBUA CAMP, PO/PS SEPPA, DISTRICT EAST KAMENG, SEPPA, AP.

¶32

VERSUS

¶33

1:THE STATE OF AP

¶34

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, AP. GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶35

Advocate for the Petitioner : S K Deori

¶36

Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP

¶37

BEFORE

¶38

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

¶39

ORDER

¶40

Date : 23-11-2020

¶41

All the Anticipatory Bail Applications are taken up together by this common order as they have arisen out of the same Police Case.

¶42

Heard the learned counsel, Mr. S. K. Deori, appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. U. Bori, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh, for the State respondent.

¶43

Page No.# 3/4

¶44

The petitioners, namely, Shri Kakang Lochung, Shri John Khora, Shri Tame Kino and Shri Dudu Kino, have filed these Anticipatory Bail Applications under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. praying for grant of pre-arrest bail in the matter of Doimukh P.S. Case No. 87/2020, registered under Section 341/395/365/324 /427 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶45

The informant borrowed a sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs from a person called Rohit Kino for doing business. He was to return the said money but he failed to return the same. On this issue, on 24.10.2020, while the informant was going towards Assam in his Bolero Vehicle, some persons, travelling in more than 1 (one) vehicles, stopped the aforesaid Bolero Vehicle of the informant. Those persons caused damaged to the Bolero Vehicle and also beat the informant. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that those miscreants had taken away the Bolero Vehicle containing valuable articles and a cash amount of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees fourty thousand) only. It is also alleged in the F.I.R. that while the Bolero Vehicle was taken away, its other occupants were also kidnapped.

¶46

After the said occurrence, the informant and the brother of Rohit Kino had an agreement, whereby, the informant agreed to return the borrowed money and also agreed to withdraw the present case.

¶47

The Case Diary, as called for, has been produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor before this Court, which has been perused.

¶48

Today, after perusal of the Case Diary, I find that the petitioners, except the petitioner, Shri Tame Kino, were just present at the place of occurrence and there are no incriminating materials against them.

¶49

So far as the allegation against the petitioner, Shri Tame Kino, is concerned, I find that he had forcibly taken away the Bolero Vehicle of the informant and, subsequently, returned it.

¶50

There is no doubt that the incident, as alleged in the F.I.R., is concerned, it took place only because of a financial dispute between the informant and Rohit Kino. The offence alleged against the petitioner, Shri Tame Kino, seems to be a private dispute. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner, Shri Tame Kino, along with other petitioners, do not deserve to be detained in custody for the allegation brought against them and, therefore, the pre-arrest bail prayers of all the petitioners are allowed. Accordingly, it is hereby directed that in the event the petitioners, namely, Shri Kakang Lochung, Shri John Khora, Shri Tame Kino and Shri Dudu Kino, are arrested by the Investigating Officer in connection with Doimukh P.S. Case No. 87/2020, registered under Section 341/395/365/324/427 of the Indian Penal Code, they shall be released on pre-arrest bail

¶51

Page No.# 4/4

¶52

on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only each with a surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. It is further directed that the petitioners shall make themselves available before the Investigating Officer as and when required in connection with the investigation of the aforesaid P.S. Case; shall render full cooperation in the investigation of the case and shall not indulge themselves in any activities which are detrimental to the investigation.

¶53

The Anticipatory Bail Applications are allowed in terms above and, accordingly, stands disposed of.

¶54

The Case Diary shall be returned.

¶55

JUDGE

¶56

Comparing Assistant

Kakang Lochung v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kakang Lochung v. the State of Ap

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

Tamiyo Taga Vs the State of Ap

Bullo Pombo Vs The State of Ap and Others

M/S G R Enterprise Vs The State of Ap and 3 Ors.

John Khora Vs the State of Ap

Tame Kino Vs the State of Ap

Dudu Kino Vs the State of Ap