Allowed

Smti Urmila Chauhan and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC5 Nov 2020Bail Appln./1903/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The court observed that the length of custodial detention, which exceeded 79 days, rendered further detention unnecessary. Consequently, the court converted the interim bail into regular bail for both applicants.

What did the court decide?

Interim bail converted to absolute bail for applicant No.1; applicant No.2 granted bail on Rs.20,000 bond with one surety.

Smti Urmila Chauhan and Anr. Vs the State of Assam — Bail and Remand | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010129202020

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : Bail Appln./1903/2020

¶6

SMTI URMILA CHAUHAN AND ANR.

¶7

W/O SRI SHANKAR CHAUHAN, R/O 2 NO SONAJULI, P.S.-DIMAKUCHI, DIST-UDALGURI, ASSAM, PIN-784509 2: RAJENDRA CHAUHAN Age: Occupation

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T DEURI

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

¶13

ORDER

¶14

05.11.2020

¶15

Heard Mr. T. Deori, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. B. B.

¶16

Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P., Assam, who has produced the Case Diary.

¶17

By filing this application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. the applicants are seeking their release on bail in connection with Dimakuchi P.S. Case No.63/2020 registered under sections 341/326/307/34 IPC.

¶18

The applicants were arrested on 17.08.2020 in connection with the

¶19

Page No.# 2/2

¶20

aforesaid case and since then, the applicant No.2 is in custody.

¶21

The applicant No.1, viz. Smti. Urmila Chauhan, was allowed to go on interim bail by order dated 15.10.2020 passed by this Court.

¶22

Having perused the Case Diary and considering the length of custodial detention of the applicant No.2, viz., Rajendra Chauhan, which has exceeded 79 days as on date, I am of the view that further custodial detention of the applicants would be unnecessary in this case.

¶23

In view of the above, the interim order dated 15.10.2020, in so far as the applicant No.1, Smti. Urmila Chauhan, is concerned, is hereby made absolute.

¶24

Likewise, the applicant No.2, viz., Rajendra Chauhan, is allowed to go on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.20,000/- with one local surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udalguri.

¶25

It is, however, made clear that the applicants shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer (IO) without prior written permission and shall not in any manner tamper with the evidence or make attempt to threaten or influence any witness connected with this case.

¶26

Violation of the above conditions may lead to cancellation of the bail granted by this Court.

¶27

Bail application stands disposed of.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Smti Urmila Chauhan and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smti Urmila Chauhan and Anr. 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

M/S. Kamakshi Ispat Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Idbi Bank Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Enamul Haque Vs the State of Assam

Pinku Kumar Vs the State of Assam

Satyabala Mandal and 10 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Ranjit Das Vs Lakhinandan Gogoi and Anr.

Joynal Abedin Laskar and 4 Ors. Vs Lalit Gogoi and 4 Ors.