Allowed

Nazmul Hussain Khadem v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC6 Oct 2020AB/2432/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for pre-arrest bail in a cheating case involving alleged false allegations and threat to informant. Court found lack of documentary evidence unnecessary for custodial interrogation and granted bail with conditions to comply with investigation and avoid tampering.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted with directions to appear within seven days and to furnish bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- if arrested, subject to conditions against leaving jurisdiction and interfering with invest

Nazmul Hussain Khadem Vs the State of Assam — Anticipatory Bail | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010127432020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB 2432/2020

¶5

1:NAZMUL HUSSAIN KHADEM S/O LT. NURUL HOQUE KHADEM, VILL. BHAKATPUR, KATHAL ROAD, MOINA BIBI CHOUDHURY LANE, PS. SILCHAR, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-788005

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

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

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶10

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Date : 06-10-2020

¶13

The Court proceedings have been conducted through Video-Conference.

¶14

Heard Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Assam as well as Mr. FZ Mazumder, learned counsel appearing for the informant through the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶15

This is an application, filed under Section 438 of the Cr.PC. seeking pre-arrest bail of

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

the accused-petitioner, namely, Nazmul Hussain Khadem, in connection with Silchar PS Case No. 2609/2020 registered under Sections 406/420/506/34 of the IPC.

¶18

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

¶19

The learned senior counsel for the accused-petitioner has submitted that the allegation in the FIR is false and there is no specific mention as to which out of the 2 (two) accused named in the FIR received the money allegedly given by the informant. It has further been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the accused-petitioner that the present accusedpetitioner is a Government servant and he is unlikely to avoid the investigation of the case and rather he would co-operate with the same.

¶20

Learned counsel for the informant appearing through the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the accused-petitioner is still threatening the informant with dire consequences. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also objected to the grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused-petitioner on the ground that the informant was cheated by the accused-petitioner for huge amount of money.

¶21

On perusal of the materials in the case diary, it does not appear that for transaction of the alleged amount of money there is any documentary evidence and there is no such witness, apart from the informant, that the money, as alleged, was given to the accusedpetitioner.

¶22

Considering the above background facts of the case and taking into account the entire materials in the case diary, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the accused-petitioner is not essential for the purpose of investigation of the case and therefore, he is granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail. However, It is made clear that in the event, the accused-petitioner threatens any of the witnesses of the case, the pre-arrest bail granted to him by this order shall be liable to be cancelled in due process of law.

¶23

The accused-petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Police Officer within 7 (seven) days from today so as to enable the Investigating Police Officer to record his statement, and, in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with a suitable surety ach of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

authority, on the conditions:-

¶26

The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the aforesaid police station, without prior written permission from its officer-in-charge,

¶27

The petitioner shall not hamper with the investigation, or tamper with the evidence of the case, and

¶28

The petitioner 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.

¶29

Return the case diary.

¶30

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Nazmul Hussain Khadem v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nazmul Hussain Khadem 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

Diganta Rohang Vs the State of Assam

Ali Hussain Vs State of Assam

Jahanuddin Vs the State of Assam

Md. Muhibur @ Mohibur Rahman Vs the State of Assam

Sabel Uddin Vs the State of Assam

Swapan Das Vs the State of Assam