Allowed

Bolindra Deori and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC14 Dec 2021AB/2786/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed an application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC. The court found the petitioners cooperative and ruled that custodial detention was unnecessary, making the interim bail order absolute subject to stipulations against witness tampering and obstruction of investigation.

What did the court decide?

Interim protection granted on 17.09.2021 made absolute, subject to conditions not to influence witnesses or obstruct investigation.

Bolindra Deori and Anr. Vs the State of Assam — Cheque Dishonour | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010144182021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB/2786/2021

¶5

BOLINDRA DEORI AND ANR. S/O LT. NAHARSING DEORI R/O BAMCHENIA GAON P.S. GOGAMUKH DIST. DHEMAJI, ASSAM

¶6

2: LUIT DEORI S/O LT. GABINDRA DEORI R/O BAMCHENIA GAON P.S. GOGAMUKH DIST. DHEMAJI ASSA

¶7

VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M BISWAS

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶10

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Date : 14-12-2021

¶13

Heard Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B.B. Gogoi,

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State of Assam.

¶16

By this application under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘CrPC’ and/or ‘the Code’, for short], the petitioners viz. 1) Bolindra Deori and 2) Luhit Deori have approached this Court seeking the benefit of pre-arrest bail, apprehending their arrest, in connection with Gogamukh Police Station Case no. 171/2021 registered for offences punishable under Sections 379/279, Indian Penal Code r/w Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

¶17

The informant had lodged the First Information Report [FIR] on 01.09.2021 alleging inter alia that on 31.08.2021, two petitioners in collusion with each other were trying to transport a few bags of rice. Further allegation is to the effect that the rice bags, suspected to be of Cooperative Society, were intercepted by local people and handed over to police.

¶18

Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner no. 1 is a licensed fair price shop dealer. The rice bags which were transported on that day were meant for a ceremony at the house of the petitioner no. 2. The local villagers had contributed a part each from their allotted quantities of rice to the petitioner no. 2 to celebrate the occasion at his house.

¶19

Mr. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor who has received the case diary, has submitted, on the basis of the materials available in the case diary, that the rice were being carried from the godown of the petitioner no. 1 who is a fair price shop dealer. The statement of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer go to indicate that some of the villagers had contributed a part of their allotted quantities for the religious ceremony to be held at the

¶20

Page No.# 3/4

¶21

house of the petitioner no. 2 and the same were initially kept at the place of the petitioner no. 1. The total quantity of rice so collected from the villagers was being transported on that day when the vehicle transporting the same was intercepted.

¶22

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available in the case diary. The petitioners were granted interim protection on 17.09.2021 with a further direction to them to appear before the Investigating Officer of the case. Pursuant to the said interim order dated 17.09.2021, both the petitioners have appeared before the Investigating Officer of the case and their statements have been recorded by the Investigating Officer of the case.

¶23

Upon consideration of the allegations made in the FIR and having regard to the materials available in the case diary, collected during the course of investigation carried out so far, it is found that the petitioners have joined the investigation and are cooperating with the investigation of the case.

¶24

Having regard to the above submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the materials available in the case diary to that effect, I am of the considered view that custodial detention of the petitioners is found not necessary for the purpose of carrying out further investigation in the case and their release on pre-arrest bail, at this stage, is not likely to affect the further investigation of the case in any prejudicial manner, provided they continue to extend their assistance and cooperation in the further investigation of the case.

¶25

Accordingly, the interim protection granted to the petitioners by order dated 17.09.2021 is made absolute, subject to the conditions that :

¶26

Page No.# 4/4

¶27

[1] The petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; and

¶28

[2] The petitioners shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police.

¶29

The application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Bolindra Deori and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bolindra Deori 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

M/S Hrd Commercial and Industrial Security Force Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Monowar Hussain and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Arun Mochahary @ Mochahari Vs the State of Assam

M/S. Dibru Part-I Meen Samabay Samiti Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Rofiqul Islam Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Jeet Saikia Vs the State of Assam