Application for pre-arrest bail rejected. Court held that materials showing complicity in cheating and recovery of deposited amounts entitled the informant's money; civil suit by co-accused is a different issue.
Bail prayer rejected; anticipatory bail application disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010119432020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB 2277/2020
1:KANDARPA BORUAH
S/O NANDESWAR BORUAH, R/O HOUSE NO. 6 (K), JURIPAR, BYE LANE NO. 6, SIX MILE, P.O.-KHANAPARA, P.S.-DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781022, DISTKAMRUP(M), ASSAM
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B BURAGOHAIN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN ORDER
12.10.2020
By this pre-arrest bail application under Section 438 CrPC, petitioner, namely, Kandarpa Boruah, has sought for pre-arrest bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Golaghat PS Case No. 788 of 2018, under Sections 420/406/294/506 IPC, corresponding to GR Case No. 2035/2018.
Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
Perused the record and Case Diary.
The informant, herein deposited Rs 3,50,000/- with accused Munin Saikia of M/s Harshali Trading & Co. for delivery of 8 (eight) battery rickshaws, on 24.04.2018. Again, on 01.09.2018, she deposited another amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- in the account of Munin Saikia. The said Munin Saikia, thereafter, transferred the amount of Rs. 5 lacs to the accused Kandarpa Boruah (petitioner herein),
Page No.# 2/2
sales manager of e-rickshaw. The Case diary reveals that although the amount was deposited by the informant bonafide, but neither she was provided any e-rickshaw, which she booked, nor her money was returned. Complicity of both the persons is made out from the entire materials on record.
Plea of the present petitioner that the said amount of Rs. 5 lacs was deposited in his account by Munin Saikia for some other business purpose, and a civil suit is already filed by co-accused Munin Saikia against the present accused Kandarpa Boruah for recovery of the said money, is altogether a different issue, which cannot be taken into account, on the face of the materials in the Case Diary.
Considering all entirety of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that petitioner is not entitled to get the privilege of pre-arrest bail, accordingly, his bail prayer is hereby rejected
Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of.
Return the Case Diary.
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC despite a civil suit filed by a co-accused regarding the recovered money?
Whether the petitioner's claim that the money deposits were for a different business purpose negates the criminal charge of cheating?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
KANDARPA BORUAH
THE STATE OF ASSAM
RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
