Single judge of the Gauhati High Court rejected a petition for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC. The court held the case involved serious offenses warranting denial of bail privilege, and the petition was disposed of accordingly.
Prayer for pre-arrest bail is rejected and petition is disposed of.
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
GAHC010162222021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
AB/2653/2021
MAHIBUR RAHMAN @ MAHIBAR RAHMAN S/O LAE MAJUN ALI R/O VILL- GOLDIGHOLA P.O. ADABARI P.S. MUKALMUA DIST. NALBARI ASSAM, PIN-781125
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
-----------Advocate for : MR. N ANAND Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA
ORDER
09-11-2021
This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C ., praying for pre-arrest bail by the petitioner, namely, Mahibur Rahman @ Mahibar Rahman , in connection with Nalbari Police Station Case No. 302 of 2021 , registered under Sections 120(B)/353/307/399 of the IPC, read with Sections 25(1-A)/27 of the Arms Act .
Page No.# 2/2
Heard Mr. N. Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. BB. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the Respondent State. The case diary produced has been perused.
The report has been received, as called for vide order, dated 04-10-2021.
It has come out from the report that the present petitioner and the accused in the instant case is one and the same person. Although he is known in the locality with some other name, almost similar to the name indicated in the police papers.
That being so, there is no dispute as regards the identity of the petitioner. Accordingly, the report is accepted.
The report is a part of the case diary, which will remain there.
On the other hand, on perusal of the materials in the case diary it is found that the petitioner is involved with the offence alleged in the instant case. The offences alleged in the instant case are serious in nature, therefore, considering the materials in the case diary, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case for grant of the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
That being so, the prayer for pre-arrest bail made by the petitioner is rejected . The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Return the case diary.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail amidst serious charges including conspiracy, attempt to murder, and arms offenses.
Whether the facts and materials disclosed in the case diary make this a fit case for granting pre-arrest bail.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Mahibur Rahman @ Mahibar Rahman
The State of Assam
Hitesh Kumar Sarma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
