High Court allowed regular bail to the petitioner under Section 439 CrPC in a case involving agitation, holding that further detention was unwarranted due to the petitioner's limited complicity, despite his participation in pelting stones.
Granted bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the CJM, Kamrup (M).
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
GAHC010013002020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln. 232/2020
1:YOUNUS TAMULY
S/O LATE HANIF ALI, VILL-JENGNIKATA (SIVASAGAR), P.S.-SIVASAGAR, DIST-SIVASAGAR, ASSAM
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN
ORDER
Date : 03-02-2020
Heard Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the accused-petitioner as well as Mr. NJ Dutta, learned Additional P.P., Assam, appearing on behalf of the State/respondent.
By this application, under Section 439 CrPC, the petitioner, namely, Younus Tamuly, has prayed for regular bail in connection with Hatigaon PS Case No. 922/2019 registered u/s 147/148/149/183/427/435/353/307/323/324 IPC read with Section 3 of Prevention of damage to Public Property Act.
Perused the case records and case diary.
Page No.# 2/2
The matter relates to the incident, occurred on 12.12.2019 while a huge numbers of protestors gathered near Hatigaon Namgarh Path, Guwahati and such group of persons by flouting Curfew, issued slogan against the State and Central Government creating a chaotic situation. Several police personnel and officials on duty were obstructed and one boy was also sustained bullet injury and subsequently died, in the incident.
The present petitioner was arrested on 12.01.2020 in relation to the aforesaid case, but, however, the records does not reflect any such serious complicity of the present petitioner towards the alleged incident save and except his presence on the place of occurrence and also participated in pelting stone to the police party, as a part of mob.
There being no serious complicity of the accused-petitioner in the offence, it appears that further custodial detention is unwarranted.
Considering all entirety of the matter, the accused-petitioner, named above, is allowed to go on bail in connection with the aforesaid case, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Kamrup (M).
The application stands disposed.
Return the case diary.
JUDGE
milansinha/
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted where the accused had only limited complicity in the incident.
Whether further custodial detention is warranted given the nature of the accused's involvement.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
YOUNUS TAMULY
THE STATE OF ASSAM
RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
