Allowed

Akram Choudhury v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC24 Feb 2020AB/61/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed pre-arrest bail application under Section 438 CrPC for petitioner accused in IPC offences related to property destruction during CAB protests. Granted due to lack of incriminating material and existence of other compromises.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail allowed subject to furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one suitable surety of the like amount. Petitioner to appear before IO within 15 days and not induce witnesses.

Akram Choudhury Vs the State of Assam — Anticipatory Bail | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010000362020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB 61/2020

¶5

1:AKRAM CHOUDHURY

¶6

S/O LUTFUR RAHMAN CHOUDHURY, VILL, P.O. AND P.S.-MUKALMUA, DIST-NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN-781126

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶9

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S MUKTAR

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIR ALFAZ ALI

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 24-02-2020

¶15

This is an application, filed under Section 438 of the Cr.PC. seeking pre-arrest bail of the accused-petitioner, namely, Akram Choudhury, apprehending arrest in connection with Mukalmua PS Case No. 565/2020 under Section 143/353/336/325/323 IPC.

¶16

Heard Mr. S.K. Muktar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. T.K.

¶17

Page No.# 2/2

¶18

Misra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Assam.

¶19

Perused the FIR and the documents annexed with the petition and also the case diary produced today.

¶20

The allegation made in the FIR, lodged by one Utpal Nath, Sub-inspector of police was that on the day of occurrence, a procession against CAB was coming from Adabari towards Mukalmua, which was stopped by police. When the procession was stopped, the protesters destroyed the public property. As many as 22 pesos were named in the FIR.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not involved in the matter. Learned counsel further submits that another FIR was lodged by one Pradip Deka for the same occurrence. However, since all the persons named in the FIR belong to the same locality, they have already entered into a compromise to settle the matter amicably.

¶22

Case diary also does not reflect any incriminating material against the petitioner justifying his custodial interrogation in the interest of investigation and as such the prayer for pre-arrest bail deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one suitable surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. The pre-arrest bail is subject to the following conditions.

¶23

The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days and co-operate with the investigation.

¶24

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.

¶25

Bail application is disposed of.

¶26

Return the case diary.

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Comparing Assistant

Akram Choudhury v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akram Choudhury 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

Ananda Chandra Dutta Vs the State of Assam

Rajiv Jyoti Sarma Vs the State of Assam

Lachit Barman Vs the State of Assam

Akram Choudhury Vs the State of Assam

Jitu Boruah Vs the State of Assam

Jitu Borah Vs the State of Assam