Allowed

Sarfaraz Ahmed (Chandi) v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC9 Jun 2020AB/3010/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail, the Gauhati High Court considered submissions from the petitioner and the Addl. Public Prosecutor. The Court found that custodial interrogation was unnecessary as the petitioner was cooperating with the investigation, and made the interim bail absolute subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Interim pre-arrest bail granted on 26.09.2019 made absolute subject to conditions of cooperation in investigation and not committing similar offences.

Sarfaraz Ahmed (Chandi) Vs the State of Assam — Anticipatory Bail | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010217112019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB 3010/2019

¶5

1:SARFARAZ AHMED (CHANDI)

¶6

S/O ANCHARUL HOQUE, R/O VILL AND P.S.-GAURIPUR, DIST-DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783331

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J KALITA

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶11

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Date : 09-06-2020

¶14

Heard Mr. J. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. PP., Assam appearing for the State/respondent.

¶15

By this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, namely, Sarfaraz Ahmed(Chandi), has prayed for pre-arrest bail apprehending arrest in connection with Basistha P.S. Case No. 1559/2018 under Sections 188/406/379/420 of the IPC.

¶16

The case diary, as called for, is placed before the Court.

¶17

Mr. J. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is on interim pre-arrest bail and he is co-operating with the investigating officer and as such, his custodial

¶18

Page No.# 2/2

¶19

detention may not be required.

¶20

Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. PP, submits that as per report of the I.O., the petitioner appeared twice before him and thus, co-operating in investigation.

¶21

Perused the case diary.

¶22

Having considered the submission made by both sides and on being satisfied, this Court finds that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary.

¶23

Accordingly, the interim pre-arrest bail, granted vide order, dated 26.09.2019 is hereby made absolute, subject to the condition that he shall co-operate in investigation as and when required and that he shall not commit similar to the offence, of which he is accused, or suspected commission.

¶24

Copy of status of investigation is taken on record.

¶25

Return the case diary.

¶26

This disposes off the application.

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Comparing Assistant

Sarfaraz Ahmed (Chandi) v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarfaraz Ahmed (Chandi) 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

Paban Goswami Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Sri Bulen Basumatary @ Bolen Basumotary Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Abdul Bari Laskar Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Mohor Ali Vs the State of Assam

Abdul Ajij @ Abdul Aziz Vs the State of Assam

Adam Ali Vs the State of Assam