Allowed

Hasan Ali and 2 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC2 Dec 2020AB/3109/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court granted anticipatory bail to three petitioners facing SIPRI charges under Section 438 CrPC. The court noted an ongoing dispute but accepted an amicable settlement mediated by village elders, deeming custodial interrogation unnecessary as investigations would not be hampered.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners to be released upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs 20,000 with two local sureties, subject to standard conditions of appearing before IO, not leaving jurisdiction, and not tampering with inv

Hasan Ali and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam — Anticipatory Bail | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010152072020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB/3109/2020

¶5

HASAN ALI AND 2 ORS

¶6

S/O BURHAN ALI, R/O VILL-MEDHIRTARI, P.O.-KADONG, P.S.-BARPETA, DIST-BARPETA, ASSAM

¶7

HUSSAIN ALI, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, S/O- BURHAN ALI,

¶8

THE PETITIONERS NO. 1 & 2 ARE R/O- VILL. MEDHIRTARI, P.O.- KADONG, P.S.- BARPETA, DIST.- BARPETA, ASSAM.

¶9

JAMINUL HASAN MALLIK, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, S/O- SHAJAHAN MALLIK, VILL- JAHARPAM, MOUZA- GHILAJHARI, P.S.- BARPETA, DIST.- BARPETA, ASSAM.

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ALI

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶14

Page No.# 2/5

¶15

BEFORE

¶16

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Date : 02-12-2020

¶19

Heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶20

2. This application under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed praying for bail of the petitioners, namely, 1 ) Hasan Ali, 2) Hussain Ali and 3) Jaminul Hasan Mallik and is a second Anticipatory bail petition filed by these petitioners. The petitioner had earlier filed Anticipatory bail petition No. 1974/2020 along with three petitioners. This Court vide order dated 17.09.2020, upon hearing the learned counsels and upon due perusal of the case diary rejected the bail petition insofar as the present petitioners are concerned. The anticipatory bail petition was, however, granted in respect of three other petitioners in the said anticipatory bail petition No. 1974/2020.

¶21

3. The present anticipatory bail petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking the grant of anticipatory bail.

¶22

4. Case diary was called for and the same is made available before this Court today.

¶23

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam.

¶24

6. The case diary presented before this Court has also been perused. It is seen that the statements of the 3(three) petitioners who were earlier granted interim bail by order dated 19.08.2020 passed in AB No. 1974/2020 appeared before the Police have been duly recorded. From a perusal of the case diary, it is seen that there is a long standing land

¶25

Page No.# 3/5

¶26

dispute between the petitioners and the informant and his relatives. From the case diary, it is also seen that although the matter is still under investigation, however, not much progress has been made by the Police in its investigations. There is also no indication as to when the chargesheet, if any, in respect of this matter is likely to be filed.

¶27

7. It is also seen that pursuant to the interim bail granted to 3(three) petitioners on 17.09.2020, the Investigating Officer released the three petitioners, namely, 1. Burhan Ali, 2. Hanif Ali and 3. Shahida Khatun on bail as per procedure. As per noting dated 16.11.2020 in the case diary, the Investigation Officer has been transferred to a different Police Station and thereafter, it is not reflected as to whether a new Investigation Officer has been placed in the place of earlier Investigation Officer and the extent of the investigation that has been carried on subsequently.

¶28

8. It is also submitted that there is a civil dispute going on between the petitioners and the informant and his relatives in respect of the land in question, the matter is pending before the learned Munsiff No. 1, Barpeta, being Title Suit No. 34/2019. That apart in respect of the judgment and order dated 11.01.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta affirming the order dated 28.02.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Barpeta in Misc. Case No. 112/2017 registered under Sections 107/145 Cr.P.C., a Criminal petition has also been preferred before this Court being Criminal Petition No. 195/2019 by petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 amongst others.

¶29

9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the matter is still pending for disposal of this Court.

¶30

10. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although there is a long standing land dispute and it is not denied that there are litigations pending in respect of the said dispute amongst the parties. However, recently, an amicable settlement has been arrived at between

¶31

Page No.# 4/5

¶32

the petitioners and the informant at the initiative of the village elders. This according to the learned counsel for the petitioners is a subsequent and a recent development, because of which the present Anticipatory bail petitioners has again been preferred. It is submitted that at present there is no quarrel amongst the petitioners and informant. They are neighbours and are living peacefully. It is therefore that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners will not be necessary in this case as they have already got their statements recorded and in view of the amicable settlements.

¶33

11. It is further submitted that they will co-operate in the investigation as and when necessary and demanded by the Investigation Officer.

¶34

12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that since the investigations are pending in respect of the petitioners therefore, the anticipatory bail ought not to be granted at this stage.

¶35

13. This Court has taken note of the fact that the statements of the petitioners have already been recorded and there is no material in the case diary indicating that the petitioners have refused to co-operate with the Investigation Officer in respect of the investigation. It is submitted that as the petitioners and the informant are neighbours and have been living peacefully without any dispute and/or quarrels; and which statement has not been objected to by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there will be no impediment in the investigations being conducted, if the anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners.

¶36

14. On the facts discussed above and upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it does not appear to this Court that for the petitioners will intimidate and/or threaten any witnesses in view of the statements made that village elders have subsequently amicably got the dispute resolved amongst the petitioners and informant. The investigations conducted are also not likely to be hampered if the petitioners are released on anticipatory bail.

¶37

Page No.# 5/5

¶38

15. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners, in connection with Barpeta P.S. Case No. 893/2020 registered under Sections 143/ 147/ 148/ 447/ 325/ 326/ 307 IPC, they shall be released upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.20,000(Rupees Twenty Thousand) each with two local sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority.

¶39

16. The anticipatory bail is granted, however, subject to adherence to the following conditions:-

¶40

That the petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer and co-operate in the investigation as and when required;

¶41

The petitioners shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the police station, without prior written permission from Officer-in-Charge, Barpeta Police Station;

¶42

That the petitioners shall not hamper or tamper with the investigation in any manner; and

¶43

That the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person/witness acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer in connection to this Police Station Case.

¶44

17. If any of the conditions are found to be violated by the petitioners then the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners.

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

Comparing Assistant

Hasan Ali and 2 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hasan Ali 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

Kawaimari Na-Pamua L.P. School Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Lal Bahdur Chetri and 2 Ors. Vs Rajesh Prasad and 2 Ors.

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs Hlk Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Satez Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Abhijit Gogoi Vs the State of Assam

M/S Annapurna Food and Beverages and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.