Allowed

Salim Uddin Ahmed and 2 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC25 Feb 2020AB/215/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed a pre-arrest bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court noted that petitioners stood on the same footing as co-accused granted bail in a related mob attack case and the investigation had progressed significantly.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for pre-arrest bail allowed subject to furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- each and complying with specified conditions regarding investigation appearance and interference.

Salim Uddin Ahmed and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam — Anticipatory Bail | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010011912020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB 215/2020

¶5

1:SALIM UDDIN AHMED AND 2 ORS. S/O NUR MOHAMMAD, R/O VILL AND P.O.-NO.2 DHUHI, P.S.-KAYAN, DIST-KAMRUP(R), ASSAM, PIN-781381

¶6

2: MAFIDUL HAQUE S/O ABDUL HAMID R/O VILL AND P.O.-NO.2 DHUHI P.S.-KAYAN DIST-KAMRUP(R) ASSAM PIN-781381

¶7

3: GAJI GIYASUDDIN @ GAJI PUTUL S/O ROUSAN ALI R/O VILL AND P.O.-NO.2 DHUHI P.S.-KAYAN DIST-KAMRUP(R) ASSAM PIN-78138 VERSUS 1:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : DR. B AHMED

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶10

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIR ALFAZ ALI

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Date : 25-02-2020

¶13

Page No.# 2/3

¶14

Heard Dr. B Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. TK Mishra, learned Addl. PP, Assam.

¶15

This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners, namely, 1. Salim Uddin Ahmed, 2. Mafidul Haque & 3. Gaji Giyasuddin @ Gaji Putul, praying for pre-arrest bail apprehending arrest in connection with Kayan PS Case No.13/2019 (corresponding to GR Case No.537/2019) under sections 143/447/448/395/435/436 /427/506 IPC.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer for pre-arrest bail of these petitioners along with others were rejected by this Court on 18.06.2019.

¶17

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that initially there was a case of murder of a villager, which was registered as Kayan PS Case No.11/2019. There was a mob attack in the house of the informant as the accused of the Kayan PS Case No.11/2019 was given shelter in the house of the informant. The mob which comprised of a large number of villagers ransacked the house of the informant and also set fire causing damage to the properties.

¶18

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this fact could not be brought to the notice of this Court which resulted in rejection of the previous bail petition. However, later on, some of the co-accused approached this Court by filing a second bail application which was allowed by this Court after considering the case diaries of both the cases.

¶19

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the present petitioners also stand on the same footing along with the co-accused who were granted bail in the case of mob attack and therefore, the present petitioners also deserves similar consideration in respect of bail.

¶20

Perused the case diary, more particularly the statement of the witnesses recorded and the progress of investigation.

¶21

Case diary shows that investigation has progressed to a great extent.

¶22

Having considered the materials in the case diary and also the progress of investigation as well as the facts and circumstances under which the occurrence

¶23

Page No.# 3/3

¶24

took place, this Court is of the view that the present petitioners stand on the same footing with the co-accused who were already granted bail and therefore, the present petitioners also in my considered view deserves similar consideration. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the progress of investigation, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is allowed.

¶25

Accordingly, it is provided that, in the event of arrest of the petitioners in connection with the aforementioned case, the petitioners above named shall be released on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- each, with a suitable surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. The pre-arrest bail is subject to the following conditions.

¶26

The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days and co-operate with the investigation.

¶27

The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶28

The pre-arrest bail application stands disposed of.

¶29

Send back the case diary.

¶30

J U D G E

¶31

Smita

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Salim Uddin Ahmed and 2 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salim Uddin Ahmed and 2 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

Akram Choudhury Vs the State of Assam

Akram Choudhury Vs the State of Assam

Jitu Boruah Vs the State of Assam

Md. Sahabuddin and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Md. Maina Ali Vs the State of Assam

Dr. Abhinab Sengupta and Anr. Vs the State of Assam