Allowed

Randhir Kumar @ Randhir Ray v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC12 Aug 2021AB/1279/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in an IPC slashing case. Despite prima facie material, the Court held that custodial interrogation is not required for the ongoing investigation and fixed a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety of like amount subject to standard conditions.

Randhir Kumar @ Randhir Ray Vs the State of Assam — Money Laundering | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010077702021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB/1279/2021

¶5

RANDHIR KUMAR @ RANDHIR RAY

¶6

S/O. LT. RAM BALAK RAY, R/O. HOUSE NO.186, SATGAON RAILWAY LINE, P.S. SATGAON, GUWAHATI-781171, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY PP, ASSAM.

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D BORA

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶11

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR

¶12

ORDER

¶13

12.08.2021

¶14

Heard Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State respondent.

¶15

This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is filed for granting the privilege of

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, namely Randhir Kumar @Randhir Ray apprehending arrest in connection with Noonmati P.S. Case No. 766/2020 u/ss 448/307/326 of the IPC.

¶18

The Case diary, as called for, is placed before the Court.

¶19

The FIR reveals the allegation that on 07.12.2020, at about 11.30 a.m., the FIR named accused person entered into the saloon of the informant’s elder brother, namely Ajoy Thakur situated at Narengi Tiniali and with an intention to kill him, slashed his neck forcibly with a sharp knife and fled away from the place of occurrence.

¶20

Perusal of the injury report reveals that the injured person sustained simple injury caused by blunt object. There are prima facie incriminating material against the petitioner. This Court is of the opinion that in the backdrop of the facts and evidence so far collected by the investigating officer, custodial interrogation of the petitioner in the interest of the ongoing investigation may not be required.

¶21

Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the petitioner, named above, shall be released on pre-arrest bail, in connection with the above noted case on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject, of course, to the following conditions:

¶22

(i) That the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 7 days, failing which on the 8^th day, this pre-arrest bail order shall automatically come to an end; and

¶23

(ii) That the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶26

Return the case diary.

¶27

This disposes of the anticipatory bail application.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Randhir Kumar @ Randhir Ray v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Randhir Kumar @ Randhir Ray 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

Smt. Lakshmi Rai Vs the State of Assam

Md. Habibur Rahman Vs the State of Assam

Satya Nath Kalita Vs the State of Assam

Ayubur Rahman and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Sri Gajen Buragohain and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Abhijit Hazarika Vs the State of Assam