Partly allowed

Azizur Rahman and 4 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC11 Nov 2021AB/2381/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order adjudicates a Section 438 Cr.P.C. application for pre-arrest bail in a case under IPC Sections 498A and Dowry Prohibition Act. Pre-arrest bail was granted to petitioners 4 and 5 with bond conditions. Interim protection for petitioners 2 and 3 was made absolute. Bail for the husband (petitioner 1) was rejected due to incriminating materials.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted to petitioners 4 and 5 on bond; interim protection to petitioners 2 and 3 made absolute; prayer for bail of petitioner 1 rejected.

Azizur Rahman and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam — Domestic Violence | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010123932021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB/2381/2021

¶5

AZIZUR RAHMAN AND 4 ORS S/O MAZIBUR RAHMAN R/O DILMIL NAGAR, P.S. HATIGAON, DIST. KAMRUP (M), GUWAHATI, ASSAM-781038, PH. 9490168074

¶6

2: MAZIBUR RAHMAN S/O LT. DHANI SEIKH R/O HOUSE NO. 27 DILMIL NAGAR

¶7

P.S. HATIGAON

¶8

DIST. KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI ASSAM-781038 PH. 9859474019

¶9

3: NOORJAHAN BEGUM W/O MAZIBUR RAHMAN R/O HOUSE NO. 27 DILMIL NAGAR P.S. HATIGAON

¶10

DIST. KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI ASSAM-781038 PH. 9859064382

¶11

4: RUNJUN BEGUM W/O SAHIDUR RAHMAN R/O VILL- MOHGAR P.O. AGGUMI P.S. CHAYGAON

¶12

Page No.# 2/4

¶13

DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM PH. 7002150032 5: ANJU BEGUM @ ANJU RABHA W/O LT. SUBRATA RABHA R/O 2 NO. UTTAR SEKHADARI P.O. DAMALCHOZE P.S. BOKO DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM PH. 847302827 VERSUS

¶14

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY PP, ASSAM

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B D KONWAR SR. ADV. Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA

¶17

ORDER

¶18

11-11-2021

¶19

This is an application made under Section 438 Cr.P.C ., seeking pre-arrest bail by the petitioners, namely, 1) Azizur Rahman, 2) Mazibur Rahman, 3) Noorjahan Begum, 4) Runjun Begum @ Rupa, and 5) Anju Begum @ Anju Rabha, in connection with Hatigaon Police Station Case No.606/2021, registered under Sections 498(A)/403/34 of the IPC, read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶20

Heard Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶21

The case diary produced, has been perused thoroughly.

¶22

On a meticulous examination of the case diary, it is found that there are allegations and counter allegations in the instant case.

¶23

Page No.# 3/4

¶24

The allegations pertain to petitioner Nos. 4 and 5, above named, are not in nature requiring their custodial interrogation.

¶25

Considering such materials in the case diary, the petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 are granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail.

¶26

Accordingly, the petitioner Nos. 4 and 5, above-named, are concerned, it is provided that in the event of their arrest in connection with the case aforementioned, they shall be released on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/each , with a suitable surety each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of arresting authority.

¶27

The direction for pre-arrest bail is subject to the conditions that the petitioner Nos. 4 and 5:

¶28

(a) shall appear before the Investigating Police Officer of concerned Police Station, within seven days from today and shall co-operate with the investigation;

¶29

(b) shall not hamper with the investigation, or tamper with the evidence of the case;

¶30

(c) 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.

¶31

In view of absence of specific and categorical materials against the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, the interim protection granted to them vide order, dated 19-082021 is made absolute on the same terms and conditions.

¶32

The petitioner No. 1, above named, is the husband of the victim/informant and there appears incriminating materials against him to justify his custodial interrogation, therefore, the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner No. 1 is rejected .

¶33

Page No.# 4/4

¶34

The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶35

Return the case diary.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Azizur Rahman and 4 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Azizur Rahman and 4 Ors. 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

Narendra Nath Karmakar Vs Mrs. Jaya Karmakar and Anr.

Sunil Kumar Sikaria and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Sarmin Sultana Vs Abu Hanif and 4 Ors.

Miss Rejina Begum Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Muksedur Rahman @ Maksed Ali and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Dewan Hasanur Zaman @ Hasanur Dewan Vs the State of Assam