Dismissed

Kamal Boro v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC7 Oct 2020AB/2206/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected the petitioner's application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.PC. The court held that the offence of oil theft was organised and involved unidentified individuals including alleged Railway officials, indicating the petitioner did not deserve pre-arrest bail. The interim bail was vacated.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's prayer for pre-arrest bail rejected; interim pre-arrest bail granted on 03.09.2020 vacated.

Kamal Boro Vs the State of Assam — Corruption | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010114872020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB 2206/2020

¶5

1:KAMAL BORO S/O- LATE MOLOY BORO, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF BATHOU NAGAR, NO. 2 MATHGHARIA UNDER NOONMATI POLICE STATION, DIST.KAMRUP(M), ASSAM.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY P.P., ASSAM

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P CHOUDHURY

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶10

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Date : 07-10-2020

¶13

The Court proceedings have been conducted through Video-Conference.

¶14

Heard Mr. P Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. RJ Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Assam.

¶15

This is an application, filed under Section 438 of the Cr.PC. seeking pre-arrest bail of the accused-petitioner, namely, Sri Kamal Boro, in connection with Bhangagarh PS Case No. 126/2020 registered under Sections 120B/420/406/411/379 of the IPC.

¶16

Page No.# 2/2

¶17

I have perused the case diary produced before this court by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶18

It appears from the materials in the case diary that out of 12,000 liters of oil, 8,000 liters were unloaded by the petitioner surreptitiously and the materials in the case diary makes it appear that there are number of people involved in the offence, who are yet to be arrested/apprehended. Some of the persons involved in the offence are even alleged to be Railway officials who allegedly have nexus with the petitioner and others. The offence in the instant case appears to be committed in an organized manner.

¶19

Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, in view of the materials in the case diary, the petitioner does not deserve to be granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, his prayer for pre-arrest bail stands rejected.

¶20

The interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner on 03.09.2020 is hereby stands vacated.

¶21

Return the case diary.

¶22

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶23

JUDGE

¶24

Comparing Assistant

Kamal Boro v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Boro 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

Md. Muhibur @ Mohibur Rahman Vs the State of Assam

Sabel Uddin Vs the State of Assam

Swapan Das Vs the State of Assam

Intaj Ali Vs the State of Assam

Halima Begum and 6 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Badsha Ali @ Badsha Sk. Vs the State of Assam