Allowed

Ayubur Rahman and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC12 Aug 2021AB/1331/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court converted an interim order into an absolute order granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to two accused apprehending arrest in a rape/misappropriation case, finding custodial interrogation unnecessary pending investigation completion.

What did the court decide?

Interim pre-arrest bail granted vide order dated 01.06.2021 made absolute subject to cooperation in investigation and abstaining from inducement.

Ayubur Rahman and Anr. Vs the State of Assam — Dowry and Cruelty | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010081692021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB/1331/2021

¶5

AYUBUR RAHMAN AND ANR

¶6

S/O LATE ALIMUDDIN, R/O VILL. KANDULIA, P.O. CHANDMAMA, P.S. KALGACHIA, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM.

¶7

2: SAIDUL ISLAM

¶8

S/O JABBAR ALI R/O VILL. KANDULIA P.O. CHANDMAMA P.S. KALGACHIA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP, ASSAM.

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N UDDIN

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶13

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR

¶14

ORDER

¶15

12.08.2021

¶16

Heard Mr. N. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K.K.

¶17

Page No.# 2/3

¶18

Parasar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State respondent.

¶19

This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is filed for granting the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, namely i) Ayubur Rahman and ii) Saidul Islam , apprehending arrest in connection with Kalgachia P.S. Case No. 205/2021 registered u/ss 448/376 of the IPC.

¶20

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

¶21

It may be mentioned that by order, dated 01.06.2021, this Court granted the privilege of interim pre-arrest bail to the petitioners subject to conditions.

¶22

The brief fact of the case is that the informant’s husband is the sole proprietor of R.A.S. Garments Pvt. Ltd. situated at K.P. Super Market, Balarpathar where the FIR named accused Nos. 1 and 2 invested small portion of share capital. It is alleged in the FIR that since 1 year the accused persons had been misappropriating money and stealing away production from the said industry without the knowledge of the informant’s husband. When the informant and her husband noticed the illegal activities of the accused persons and requested them to give up those habits they started harassing the informant’s family. It is further alleged that on 31.03.2021 at about 11 p.m., when the informant’s husband came out from his rented house at Balarpathar to urinate, the accused persons wrongfully entered into the house and committed forceful sexual intercourse with the informant.

¶23

On perusal of the statements of the victim woman under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., it appears that she has implicated both the petitioners with the alleged offences. But the medical report does not corroborate her allegation. Her said statements show that the petitioners work as tailors at the garment

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

industry of the petitioner. There is evidence to show that even the adjacent resident expressed ignorance about such alleged incident and there is indication of frequent quarrels between the victim’s husband regarding the said garment industry. The investigation is, however, yet to be completed.

¶26

In terms of the interim pre arrest bail granted earlier the petitioners have appeared before the investigating officer and got their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. This Court finds that custodial interrogation of the petitioners in the interest of investigation may not be required.

¶27

Accordingly, the interim pre-arrest bail granted vide order, dated 01.06.2021 is hereby made absolute, subject to the following conditions-

¶28

(i) That the petitioners shall co-operate in investigation as and when required; and

¶29

(ii) That the petitioners 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.

¶30

Return the case diary.

¶31

This disposes of the anticipatory bail application.

¶32

Comparing Assistant

¶33

JUDGE

Ayubur Rahman and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayubur Rahman 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

Smt. Lakshmi Rai Vs the State of Assam

Md. Habibur Rahman Vs the State of Assam

Satya Nath Kalita Vs the State of Assam

Randhir Kumar @ Randhir Ray Vs the State of Assam

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

Abhijit Hazarika Vs the State of Assam