Dismissed

Isub Ali @ Yousuf Ali v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC16 Nov 2021AB/3444/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court rejected a second bail petition under Section 438 CrPC seeking pre-arrest bail. The Court held that a certificate from the Sub-Divisional Engineer was insufficient to negate the petitioner's potential involvement in the alleged offence despite his claims of lack of specific authorization.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail petition under Section 438 CrPC rejected as devoid of merit.

Isub Ali @ Yousuf Ali Vs the State of Assam — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010174522021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB/3444/2021

¶5

ISUB ALI @ YOUSUF ALI

¶6

S/O- KALU SHEIKH, VILL- SUPARIGURI NO 2, P.O. FAGUNAGAON, P.S. MANIKPUR, DIST.- BONGAIGAON (ASSAM), PIN- 783390

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE P.P., ASSAM

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N AHMED

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶11

BEFORE

¶12

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

17.11.2021.

¶15

By filing this second bail petition under Section 438 of the CrPC, petitioner Isub Ali @ Yousuf Ali has sought for pre-arrest bail in connection with the Bijni P.S. Case No.382/2021, registered under Section 379 of the IPC.

¶16

On the earlier occasion, this Court, on the basis of the materials in the case diary as well as

¶17

Page No.# 2/2

¶18

statement of the eye witnesses on the complicity of the accused/petitioner, his bail prayer was rejected on 05.10.2021, in A.B. No.2905/2021, for shifting of the cables from the place of occurrence, as alleged in the FIR.

¶19

Secondly, although the present bail petition is preferred on the ground that the accused petitioner being the contractor, doing contracts works under the Bijni Electrical Sub-Division but there is no any specific mention from any corner that the petitioner was authorized for shifting the cables from the place of occurrence.

¶20

Now the accused/petitioner has filed one certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Engineer that the petitioner is a labour provider under M/s. Laser Power & Infra Pvt. Ltd. and he was not found in any chargeable error during his working tenure. This certificate alone is not sufficient to negate the involvement/complicity of the present petitioner with the offence alleged, in view of the materials in the case diary, that has already been gone through.

¶21

Accordingly the present petition is without any merit and the same is rejected.

¶22

JUDGE

¶23

Comparing Assistant

Isub Ali @ Yousuf Ali v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Isub Ali @ Yousuf Ali 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

Ibrahim Ali and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Gautam Chanda Vs the State of Assam

Rajdip Bhuyan Vs the State of Assam

Dhyan Foundation Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Jakir Hussain Vs the State of Assam

Dipti Roy Vs the State of Assam