The Gauhati High Court considered an application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in an NDPS case. Finding the petitioner implicated in the FIR and insufficient grounds in the case diary to disprove implication, the Court rejected the prayer.
Prayer for pre-arrest bail rejected; petition 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
GAHC010161192021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/3125/2021
GAUTAM BANIA S/O SRI GHANSHYAM BANIA R/O BAIHATA CHARIALI, P.O. AND P.S. BAIHATA CHARIALI, DIST. KAMRUP (RURAL)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, 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, Gautam Bania , in connection with Baihata Chariali Police Station Case No. 394 of 2021 , registered under Sections 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 .
Page No.# 2/2
Heard Mr. M. Ahmed, 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.
On perusal of the materials in the case diary it appears that the accusedpetitioner has been implicated by the statement in the FIR itself. However, Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the accusedpetitioner is not dealing with contraband and he has falsely been implicated in the statement of the co-accused.
In the considered view of this Court, the statement of co-accused is relevant at the stage of investigation. However, in view of the materials in the case diary as of now, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, 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
1 issue framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case under Sections 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Gautam Bania
The State of Assam
Hitesh Kumar Sarma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
