Allowed

Karngom Likar v. the State of Ap

Gauhati HC20 Jan 2020AB/206/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted pre-arrest bail to petitioner in an accidental shooting case under IPC and Arms Act, noting discrepancies in police seizure of the weapon. Bail granted on bond with strict conditions including appearance before IO and restriction on leaving district.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted on a surety bond with conditions to appear before the Investigating Officer within seven days and not leave the district without informing police.

Karngom Likar Vs the State of Ap — Narcotics (NDPS) | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC040015962019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB 206/2019

¶5

1:Karngom Likar S/O Rikar Likar, residentof Poma village, P.O. Missioin, P.S,. Itanagar

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1:THE STATE OF AP through the public prosecutor, AP

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : Gimi Tarak

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP

¶10

BEFORE

¶11

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

Date : 20-01-2020

¶14

Heard Mr. Taja Garam, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Tsering, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

¶15

Perused the Case Diary that has been produced by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

¶16

By this application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail in connection with Itanagar P.S. Case No.333/2019 under Sections 326/338 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

¶17

It is seen that as per the allegations contained in the FIR dated

¶18

Page No.# 2/3 17.12.2019, the wife of the petitioner was brought to R. K. Mission Hospital, Itanagar with serious bullet injury on her face and she was referred to Guwahati for availing better treatment. As per the FIR, on inquiry, by the Duty Officer, it was found that the lady was accidentally shot by the petitioner with his .32 pistol at their rented house. The said FIR was registered as Itanagar P.S. Case No. 333/2019.

¶19

The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has produced the Case Diary.

¶20

On perusal of the Case Diary, it is seen that the I.O. of the case visited the Place of Occurrence and it was found that the rented house of the victim was washed for disappearance of the evidence and he recovered the seized pistol from a bed and the statement of the victim could not be recorded due to her critical condition.

¶21

The statement made at 11.30 hours in the Case Diary on 20.12.2019, wherein, it has been mention as follows “Now, H/C SP Singh In Charge PCR-IV Ganga Market, Itanagar appeared and recorded his statement in separate sheet of paper under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.. In the statement, he stated that one person came and handed over his pistol in RK Mission Hospital and informed that incident took place while his wife was handling the arms and he received the pistol and handed over to the duty officer”. Therefore, it appears to this Court that the said arms was recovered from the petitioner (accused) who handed over his pistol in RK Mission Hospital to the Police. Therefore, there are 2 (two) seizure of the same pistol. This Court feels appropriate that the 2 (two) statements at 10.10 hours on 18.12.2019 and 11.30 hours on 20.12.2019 be brought to the notice of the Director General of Police, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar to examine as to how the Police could seize a pistol from a bed and subsequently seize the said arms from the petitioner at RK Mission Hospital.

¶22

In view of the fact that the subsequent statement in the Case Diary, which reveals that the petitioner handed over the arms to the Police, the Court is of the view that the petitioner had appeared before the Police with no intention to avoid investigation. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant pre-

¶23

Page No.# 3/3

¶24

arrest bail on the following terms and conditions:-

¶25

(1) That the petitioner shall give a bail bond of Rs.25,000/- with 2 (two) sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority/Police;

¶26

(2) That the petitioner shall appear before the I.O. along with his wife within a period of 7 (seven) days from today, failing which, the interim pre-arrest bail so granted shall stands vacated for non-compliance to appear before the I.O. of the case; and

¶27

(3) That the petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of Papumpare District without informing the Police of his movement.

¶28

With the aforesaid observation, this bail application stands disposed of.

¶29

A copy of this order may be furnished to the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor of the State to bring the order to the notice of the Director General of Police, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Karngom Likar v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karngom Likar 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

Bangshilal Gupta Vs Subhash Gupta and 9 Ors.

Innas Ali Vs the Central Bank of India and Anr.

Subhash @ Subash Deb Nath Vs on Death of Bishnupada Saha His Legal Heirs - Archana Saha and Anr.

Biri Tach and 11 Ors. Vs The State of Ap and 45 Ors.

Rending Tayo Biki Vs The State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Tame Dodum Vs the State of Ap