Petitioner challenged seeking pre-arrest bail under section 438 Cr.P.C. alleging implications from other cases. Court found prima facie materials implicating the petitioner and his failure to appear before I/O. Application rejected.
Rejection of anticipation bail application.
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
GAHC010306482019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB 4474/2019
1:MOJMUL HAQUE
S/O MONTAZ ALI, VILL. DANGAIGAON, P.S. BIJNI, DIST. CHIRANG, ASSAM, PIN-783390
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR K BHUYAN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
ORDER
Date : 07.01.2020
Heard Mr. H.A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
The petitioner has filed this application under section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Hatigaon P.S. Case No.206/2018, under section 379 IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has sought to be apprehended in connection with the present case as a fall out of investigation in STF P.S. Case No.4/2018 under section 379 IPC. It is projected that F.R. has been submitted against the sole accused in STF P.S. Case No.4/2018 finding the said accused not involved in the alleged offence of
Page No.# 2/2
stealing vehicle. It is submitted that in investigation of the said STF P.S. Case No.4/2018 and in other connected cases, the petitioner is sought to be implicated on the basis of statements made by accused therein. By projecting that the petitioner is working in a private firm, it is submitted that the relevant facts were not considered by the Court while rejecting the previous bail application.
Perused the Case Diary as produced by the learned A.P.P. It appears from the materials on record that specific statements have been made by co-accused to implicate the petitioner as purchaser of the stolen vehicle.
Per contra, the learned A.P.P. has submitted that the stolen vehicle has not yet been recovered and it is also submitted that the petitioner was granted the privilege of interim prearrest bail in connection with AB 1832/2018 in connection with Hatigaon P.S. Case No.206/2018 but the petitioner did not appear before the concerned I/O and, as such, the appearance of the petitioner before the I/O is not reflected in the Case Diary.
On considering the materials on record, as prima facie materials are found to implicate the petitioner, the Court is inclined to reject the instant bail application.
Let the Case Diary be returned.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail under section 438 Cr.P.C.
Whether the failure to appear before I/O justifies rejection of the bail application.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
MOJMUL HAQUE
THE STATE OF ASSAM
Kalyan Rai Surana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
