The Gauhati High Court rejected an application for pre-arrest bail filed by an accused in a corruption case. The court found ample prima facie incriminating evidence in the case diary regarding misappropriation of government funds.
The pre-arrest bail application of the petitioner stands rejected.
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.# 1/3
GAHC010096532021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/1759/2021
AINUR RAHMAN AND ANR. S/O. ABDUL ALI, VILL. BANBRIA, P.O. BHALLA, P.S. BARPETA, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM.
2: MAHBUB ALI AZAD @ MEHBUB ALI AZAD S/O. MOBARAK ALI AZAD VILL. BARBARADI DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781309
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY PP, ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D DAS SR. ADV
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR
ORDER
Date : 10.08.2021
Heard Mr. B. K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. B. Gogoi, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent.
Page No.# 2/3
By this petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioners, namely, 1. Md. Ainur Rahman and 2. Mahbub Ali Azad @ Mehbub Ali Azad , have prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending their arrest in connection with Vigilance Police Station Case No. 02/2021 under Sections 120(B)/406/420/409/468/471 of the IPC read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Amendment), 1988.
The case diary, as called for, is placed before this Court.
The FIR reveals the allegation that 14 No. of MLALAD Schemes under Mandia Development Block in respect of Baghbar LAC were not executed as per plan and estimate by the Construction Committee constituted by Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta. Thus, huge amount of Government fund was misappropriated by the members of the committee by causing wrongful loss to the Government.
It is submitted that the petitioner No. 1 has already been arrested and, as such, the prayer for pre-arrest bail on behalf of the petitioner No. 1 has become infructuous.
On scrutiny of the case diary, it transpires that the petitioner No. 2 was the Accredited Engineer/Junior Engineer in the office of the Block Development Officer, Mandia and in that capacity, he was responsible besides others for supervision of the execution of the field works mentioned in the FIR itself. A detailed scrutiny of the statements of the witnesses and the relevant documents, it is revealed that there is abundance of prima facie incriminating evidence against him, subject, however, to final outcome in the investigation, which is yet to be
Page No.# 3/3
completed.
Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner No. 2.
Accordingly, the pre-arrest bail application stands rejected.
Return the case diary.
This disposes of the anticipatory bail application.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted to the petitioner who apprehends arrest for alleged corruption charges.
Whether the prima facie evidence of misappropriation makes the case not a fit case for anticipatory bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Md. Ainur Rahman and Anr.
State of Assam
Ajit Borthakur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
