Partly allowed

Lilima Khatun and 3 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC12 Nov 2020AB/1690/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 438 CrPC matter regarding alleged PMAYG scheme misappropriation, the Gauhati High Court made the interim bail of three petitioners absolute due to lack of complicity, rejected bail for the fourth petitioner accused of actual misappropriation, and vacated his interim bail.

What did the court decide?

Interim bail of petitioners 1, 2, and 4 made absolute; prayer for bail of petitioner 3 rejected and interim bail vacated; Case Diary returned.

Lilima Khatun and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam — Anticipatory Bail | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010094652020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB/1690/2020

¶5

LILIMA KHATUN AND 3 ORS.

¶6

W/O- MD. ABDUL KARIM ULLAH, R/O- BARKHABAL, (WARD NO. 1), P.S. LAHARIGHAT, DIST- MORIGAON, ASSAM.

¶7

2: MD. ABDUL KARIM ULLAH

¶8

3: MOJIBUR RAHMAN

¶9

4: MINARAM BORDOLOI @ MINARAM NATH

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY PP, ASSAM.

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J ALI

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶14

BEFORE

¶15

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN ORDER

¶16

12.11.2020

¶17

By this application under Section 438 CrPC, petitioners, namely, 1) Lilima Khatun, 2) Md Abdul Karim Ullah, 3) Mojibur Rahman and 4) Minaram Bordoloi @ Minaram Nath, have sought for prearrest bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Laharighat PS Case No. 178/2020, under

¶18

Page No.# 2/2

¶19

Sections 120 (B)/420/406/34 IPC.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for both the sides.

¶21

Also perused the record and Case Diary.

¶22

The allegation of the informant that the house sanctioned in his name under the PMAYG Scheme, has been misappropriated by all the petitioners, is not reflected in the Case Diary, save and except some materials against the petitioner No. 3, Mojibur Rahman. So far from the evidence collected during investigation, it reflects that the informant has no land of his own, so the mother of Mojibur Rahman gifted some land (2 lechas) to the informant and the house could be constructed upto 50 % with the installment released. Now, the said Mojibur Rahman, has misappropriated the property without allowing the informant to occupy the house. The Gaonburah concerned has also given his statement on the above aspect.

¶23

Considering all entirety of the matter, as there is no complicity of the petitioner Nos. 1) Lilima Khatun, 2) Md Abdul Karim Ullah, and 4) Minaram Bordoloi @ Minaram Nath, the interim bail granted to these petitioners on 02.07.2020, is hereby made absolute. However, the prayer for bail in respect of Mojibur Rahman, petitioner No. 3 is rejected. Accordingly, the interim bail granted on 02.07.2020, in respect of petitioner No. 3 is hereby vacated.

¶24

Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of.

¶25

Return the Case Diary.

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

Comparing Assistant

Lilima Khatun and 3 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lilima Khatun and 3 Ors. 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

Ranushree Mahanta and 3 Ors. Vs Monica Mahanta Das

Sadek Ali @ Md. Sadik Ali Vs the State of Assam

Sahfikul @ Safiqul Islam and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Rahul Bezbaruah Vs the State of Assam

Rizuwan Ali @ Rezuyan Ali and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Md. Zakir Hussain Vs the State of Assam