The Gauhati High Court granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in a cheating case, observing that custodial detention was unwarranted as there was an agreement with the informant and the petitioner was ready to refund dues.
Petitioner allowed pre-arrest bail on Rs. 20,000 with one surety of like amount, directed to appear before IO within 15 days.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010084322020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB 1463/2020
1:BANDANA DAS
D/O-RAJUMONI DAS, R/O- QUARTER NO. 10/5 SECRETARIAT, ASSAM, NEAR SUPER MARKET, DISPUR(M), ASSAM, PIN- 781006
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY PP ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MD H R AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN
ORDER
Date : 19-10-2020
This is an application made under Section 438 Cr.P.C ., seeking pre-arrest bail by the petitioner, namely, Bandana Das in connection with Paltanbazar Police Station Case No.354/2020 , registered under Sections 406/420 of the IPC.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Today the learned counsel for the informant has also entered his appearance and filed his objection as against the bail prayer made by the petitioner.
So far as the allegation is concerned, the present petitioner while working as a salesman of mobile in the name and style of “Smar Tech Solutions” sold various mobile phone in EMI to different customers but she has not yet returned certain amount due to the informant as against the mobile phone sold out and the FIR was filed with the allegation that he has
Page No.# 2/2
misappropriated the money.
The petitioner herein by filing two additional affidavits has admitted the selling of the mobile phone on EMI and such an EMI was granted with due intimation and knowledge of the informant himself and in this regard they have also entered into an agreement. Now, it has been contended that due to the lockdown period as the customers did not pay the installments as the situation is not yet improving so she could not paid the amount. She contends that she no way has misappropriated the money as alleged nor committed any theft and she is still ready to pay the remaining amount of Rs.2,65,000/- after receiving the same from the customers.
The learned counsel for the informant has however submits that they are entitled to more than three lakhs from the petitioner.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the basis of the case diary has submitted that as the informant and the petitioner has already entered into an agreement for such transaction of selling phone through EMI and the petitioner is still ready to pay the amount subject to collection of such EMI from the customers and also in view of the prevailing situation of Covid-19, the petitioner solely cannot be made responsible for such none payment/due, this Court is of the opinion that custodial detention of the accused person is not warranted. Accordingly, the petitioner is hereby allowed to go on pre-arrest bail of Rs. 20,000/-, with one surety of like amount, in the event of his arrest with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days to give her statement and to co-operate with the investigation.
In terms of the above, this bail application stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in connection with allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust.
Whether the petitioner's readiness to refund debts and the prevailing lockdown situation warrant granting bail to avoid custodial detention.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bandana Das
The State of Assam
Rumi Kumari Phukan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
