Partly allowed

Monirul @ Morinul Islam and 2 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC9 Dec 2021AB/3618/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court considered a pre-arrest bail petition under Section 438 CrPC regarding offences under IPC sections 379, 420, 294, 323, and 506. While bail was rejected for the first accused due to sufficient complicity and alleged marriage fraud, interim bail for the other two petitioners was made absolute.

What did the court decide?

Bail rejected for petitioner 1; interim bail of petitioners 2 and 3 made absolute.

Monirul @ Morinul Islam and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam — Cheating and Forgery | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010182332021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB/3618/2021

¶5

MONIRUL @ MORINUL ISLAM AND 2 ORS S/O RABIYAL HUSSAIN R/O VILL- HAHCHARI P.S. CHAYGAON DIST.KAMRUP, ASSAM PH. NO. 9864044267

¶6

2: RABIYAL HUSSAIN S/O LT. MAHMUD ALI R/O VILL-HAHCHARI P.S.CHAYGAON DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM PH. NO. 9864044267

¶7

3: MONOWARA BEGUM W/O RABIYAL HUSSAIN R/O VILL-HAHCHARI P.S.CHAYGAON DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM PH. NO. 986404426

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B K DAS

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶12

Page No.# 2/3

¶13

:: BEFORE ::

¶14

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

09.12.2021

¶17

By filing this petition under Section 438 of the CrPC, the petitioners, namely- (1) Monirul @ Morinul Islam, (2) Rabiyal Hussain and (3) Monowara Begum have sought for pre-arrest bail in connection with Jalukbari P.S. Case No.1006/2021, registered under Section 379/ 420/ 294/ 323/506 IPC.

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam representing the State. Also perused the case diary so produced.

¶19

So far as regard the accused petitioner no.1 Monirul @ Morinul Islam is concerned, sufficient complicity with the offence alleged is discernible that he pretending to marry the informant, made a marriage agreement with the informant and thereafter started living with the informant for several months but when the informant was not available at home, he (accused petitioner no.1) committed theft of money collected by the informant for transformation to an woman. After committing theft of informant’s hard earned money, the accused petitioner no.1 abandoned the informant for his own oblique purpose.

¶20

Considering all entirety of the matter, the bail prayer in so far as the accused petitioner no.1 Monirul @ Morinul Islam, is rejected, however there being no incriminating materials against the other accused petitioners, their custodial

¶21

Page No.# 3/3

¶22

detention is not warranted. Accordingly, interim bail so granted earlier is hereby made absolute.

¶23

The application stands disposed of.

¶24

Return the case diary.

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

Comparing Assistant

Monirul @ Morinul Islam and 2 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monirul @ Morinul Islam and 2 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

Utpal Medhi Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Sri Suresh Agarwalla Vs the Central Bureau of Investigation (Cbi) (Acb)

Coolberg Beverages Pvt. Ltd. and 3 Ors. Vs Shree Ram Enterprises and 4 Ors.

Nitul Bhuyan and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Mokbul Hussain and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Dr. Hosni Mobarok Choudhury and Anr. Vs the State of Assam