Allowed

Uttam Basor and 4 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC14 Dec 2021AB/3234/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge bench allowed a composite anticipatory bail petition filed by five petitioners. The court held that custodial interrogation was not warranted in a land dispute case where the Municipal Board had already initiated steps to resolve the grievance, and the earlier interim order was made absolute.

What did the court decide?

The bail petition is allowed and the earlier interim order is made absolute.

Uttam Basor and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam — Landlord and Tenant | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010166592021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB/3234/2021

¶5

UTTAM BASOR AND 4 ORS S/O LATE MANGAL BASOR VILL- HORIZON COLONY, WARD NO. 18, P.O. TELIBASTI P.S. AND DIST. HOJAI, ASSAM

¶6

2: ASHAB UDDIN S/O LATE WASIR ALI VILL- POUB DHONIRAM PATHER P.O. TELIBASTI P.S. AND DIST. HOJAI ASSAM

¶7

3: SHAHJAHAN AHMED CHOUDHURY @ APPU S/OLT. MOIZ UDDIN AHMED CHOUDHURY VILL- BISHNUPALLY WARD NO. 17 HOJAI TOWN P.O. HOJAI P.S. AND DIST. HOJAI ASSAM

¶8

4: GIAS UDDIN S/O LATE WASIR ALI VILL- POUB DHONIRAM PATHER P.O. TELIBASTI P.S. AND DIST. HOJAI ASSAM

¶9

5: WAHIDUL ISLAM @ WAHID ULLAH S/O ABU BAKKAR SIDDIQUE VILL- POUB DHONIRAM PATHER P.O. TELIBASTI P.S. AND DIST. HOJAI ASSA

¶10

Page No.# 2/3

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR F K R AHMED

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶15

BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

14.12.2021.

¶18

By filing this petition under Section 438 of the CrPC, the four petitioners namely, 1) Uttam Basor, 2) Ashab Uddin, 3) Shahjahan Ahmed Choudhury @ Appu, 4) Gias Uddin and 5) Wahidul Islam @ Wahid Ullah, have sought for pre-arrest bail in the event of their arrest in connection with the Hojai PS Case No. 320/2021 (corresponding to GR Case No. 1232/2021), under Sections 420/406 of the IPC.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record and the case diary produced.

¶20

So far as the allegation is concerned, it appears that the petitioner No.1, who was allotted land by the Municipal Board, alleged to have transferred the same to other persons and the local people raised the grievance that the other Harijan people are deprived of possession of the Govt. land and the petitioners are termed as land grabbers.

¶21

Obviously the dispute relates to the land in question and the said land was given by the Municipal Board to the petitioner No.1 and the case diary reveals that the Municipal Board has stepped into the matter and has taken proper steps regarding the dispute, which will take care of all the consequences, that may have occurred in view of such allegations.

¶22

Page No.# 3/3

¶23

JUDGE

¶24

Taking note of all the above, this Court is of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not warranted and accordingly the bail petition stands allowed and the interim order granted earlier is made absolute.

¶25

Return back the case diary forthwith.

¶26

Comparing Assistant

Uttam Basor and 4 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uttam Basor 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

Fakrul Bahar and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Lila Gogoi Vs the State of Assam

Md.Habi Ullah @ Habiullah Vs the State of Assam

Sanjib Kumar Nath Vs the State of Assam

Papu Moni Ozah Vs the State of Assam

Nurul Islam and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam