The High Court granted absolute anticipatory bail to two petitioners apprehending arrest in IPC case sections 406 and 420, noting lack of supporting evidence and existence of counter-FIRs against the prosecution.
Interim bail order made absolute; anticipatory bail application disposed of; Case Diary returned.
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
GAHC010114332021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/2197/2021
DIPAK DAS AND ANR.
S/O DILIP DAS, R/O SANKAR NAGAR PATH, BYE LANE NO. 2, P.S. FATASIL AMBARI, GUWAHATI 781034, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.
2: PRAKASH MANCHUDAYA @ PRAKASH SUGNOMAL MANCHUDAYA
S/O LATE SUGNOMAL MANCHUDAYA R/O BYELANE OPPOSITE TO DOMINOS REHABARI P.S. PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP, ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B CHOWDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN ORDER
07.12.2021
By this pre-arrest bail application filed under Section 438 CrPC, the petitioners, namely, 1) Dipak Das and 2) Prakash Manchudaya @ Prakash
Page No.# 2/2
Sugnomal Manchudaya, have sought for bail, apprehending their arrest in connection with Latasil PS Case No. 258/2021, corresponding to GR Case No. 11530/2021, under Sections 406/420/342/506/34 of the IPC.
Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
It transpires that on similar accusations, both the parties have filed FIR against each other. On 24.07.2021, the petitioner, Prakash Manchudaya lodged the FIR, alleging that the accused Pranjal Deka took an amount of Rs. 3,59,000/- from the petitioner, on the pretext of supplying goods, but instead of supplying the goods, he threatened him. On 25.07.2021, the said Pranjal Deka, raising similar allegation that on 12.04.2021, the present petitioner took an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- from him, with an undertaking to return the same within 2 (two) months, but the same was not returned, has filed the FIR. Now, it appears that there is no any supporting evidence as regards the money taken by the petitioners from the informant and in view of the counter allegation, the authenticity of such FIR has to be assessed carefully.
Taking note of all above, it appears that custodial interrogation of the accused petitioner is not warranted. Accordingly, the interim bail order is hereby made absolute.
Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of.
Return the Case Diary.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner warrants custodial interrogation or anticipatory bail should be granted.
How to assess the authenticity of the FIR in light of counter-allegations.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
DIPAK DAS AND ANR.
THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP, ASSAM
RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
