Allowed

Nityananda Barkakoty v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC10 Nov 2020AB/2045/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in a case alleging criminal conspiracy. The Court, finding no need for custodial detention despite alleged discrepancies in the FIR, made the previously granted interim bail absolute and directed cooperation in the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Interim anticipatory bail granted by order dated 18.09.2020 made absolute; petitioner directed to cooperate with investigation.

Nityananda Barkakoty Vs the State of Assam — Anticipatory Bail | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010110532020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB/2045/2020

¶5

NITYANANDA BARKAKOTY

¶6

S/O LATE PADMA KANTA BARAKAKOTY, RESIDENT OF JATIA, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 6

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BORA

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶11

BEFORE

¶12

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

¶13

ORDER

¶14

10.11.2020

¶15

By this application under Section 438 CrPC, petitioner, namely, Nityananda Barkakoty, has sought for pre-arrest bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Paltanbazar PS Case No. 482/2020, under Sections 120B/379 IPC.

¶16

Heard Mr A M Bora, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Ms S H Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

¶17

Also perused the record and Case Diary.

¶18

Although the informant in the FIR tried to project some anomalies and discrepancies in the file

¶19

Page No.# 2/2

¶20

prepared at the time when the petitioner was the Secretary, Board of Sports of Assam (FIR was filed on 23.07.2020), but the Case Diary itself reveals that petitioner was working in that capacity in the year 2003, and on transfer, he left the office in the same year and he has also retired on 31.12.2014. No sort of discrepancy is reflected in the entire period of the petitioner as alleged in the FIR, whereas, IO has also given a note that no any complicity of the present petitioner is suggested in the missing of the file from the said office and other discrepancies in his period.

¶21

Considering all entirety of the matter, it transpires that custodial detention of the accused petitioners is not at all required. Accordingly, the interim bail granted to the petitioner on 18.09.2020, is hereby made absolute, with further direction to the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation of the case, as and when required.

¶22

Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of.

¶23

Return the Case Diary.

¶24

JUDGE

¶25

Comparing Assistant

Nityananda Barkakoty v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nityananda Barkakoty 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

Abhijit Aich @ Bhola Vs the State of Assam

Abu Sama Miya and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Sahidul Islam and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Miss Ujala Khatun Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Sattar Ali Vs the State of Assam

M/S Ganeshka Kanoi Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rajen Dutta