Allowed

Shngakar Bari v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC15 Oct 2020AB/807/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court considered an application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC. The court noted the petitioner had paid part of compensation and gave an undertaking to pay the remainder. It held that custodial detention was unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

The interim pre-arrest bail order dated 04.03.2020 is made absolute; anticipatory bail application disposed of; case diary returned.

Shngakar Bari Vs the State of Assam — Anticipatory Bail | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010053722020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB 807/2020

¶5

1:SHNGAKAR BARI

¶6

S/O SRI SBAPAN BARI, BY OCCUPATION-BUSINESS, C/O AT SBAPAN BARI, 14, SIX MILE, PANJABARI, KHANAPARA, GUWAHATI-781022 AND P/R/A HOUSE NO. 15, KAILSH NAGAR, BYE LANE NO. 1, OPP. NAMGHAR PATH, PANJABARI, GUWAHATI-37, DIST-KAMRUP(M)

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶9

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D DAS SR. ADV

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶12

BEFORE

¶13

HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Date : 15-10-2020

¶16

By this application under Section 438 of the CrPC, the petitioner, namely, Shngakar Bari has prayed for pre-arrest bail in connection with Paltan Bazar Police Station Case No. 1310/2019, registered under Section 120(A)/406/420/506 of the IPC.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and also perused the case diary including the status report submitted by the Investigating Officer.

¶18

Today, on the basis of the case diary and the status report submitted by the Investigating Officer, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the accused petitioner has already

¶19

Page No.# 2/2

¶20

paid a sum of Rs. 5,29,000/- to the informant, as directed by this Court.

¶21

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the remaining amount without prejudice to the interest of the informant.

¶22

In view of the undertaking given by the petitioner as mentioned above, this court is of the opinion that custodial detention of the petitioner can be dispensed with.

¶23

Accordingly, the order dated 04.03.2020 granting interim pre-arrest bail to the petitioner is hereby made absolute.

¶24

Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of.

¶25

Return the Case Diary.

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

Comparing Assistant

Shngakar Bari v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shngakar Bari 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

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mr Jugen Mal and 2 Ors.

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smti Haziron Rabha

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smti Premoda Das and 2 Ors.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Sharat Ch. Mahanta and 2 Ors.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Miss Majida Khatun and 2 Ors.

Dhan Das Vs the State of Assam