Allowed

Amir Hamja and 4 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC9 Dec 2021AB/3894/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court granted pre-arrest bail to five accused persons, including the informant's husband and in-laws, involved in a case alleging dowry-related offenses and domestic violence. The court found that custodial interrogation was unnecessary and did not prejudice further investigation.

What did the court decide?

Interim protection made absolute for four petitioners; fifth petitioner granted bail on Rs. 10,000 with conditions.

Amir Hamja and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam — Domestic Violence | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010196482021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB/3894/2021

¶5

AMIR HAMJA AND 4 ORS S/O HABIBAR RAHMAN R/O SATRAKANARA 9 NO. SEAT, P.S. BAGHBAR DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM

¶6

2: JAHANGIR ALI @ JAHANGIR ALAM S/O HABIBAR RAHMAN R/O SATRAKANARA 9 NO. SEAT

¶7

P.S. BAGHBAR DIST. BARPETA ASSAM

¶8

3: BABUL ALI S/O HABIBAR RAHMAN R/O SATRAKANARA 9 NO. SEAT

¶9

P.S. BAGHBAR DIST. BARPETA ASSAM

¶10

4: HABIBAR RAHMAN S/O LATE TAJER ALI R/O SATRAKANARA 9 NO. SEAT

¶11

P.S. BAGHBAR DIST. BARPETA ASSAM

¶12

5: SALEHA KHATUN W/O HABIBAR RAHMAN R/O SATRAKANARA 9 NO. SEAT

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

P.S. BAGHBAR DIST. BARPETA ASSA

¶15

VERSUS

¶16

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N UDDIN

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶20

ORDER

¶21

09.12.2021

¶22

Heard Mr. N. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State of Assam.

¶23

By this application under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [CrPC], the petitioners viz. [1] Amir Hamja, [2] Jahangir Ali @ Jahangir Alam, [2] Babul Ali, [4] Habibar Rahman, and [5] Saleha Khatun have approached this Court seeking the benefit of pre-arrest bail, apprehending their arrest, in connection with Baghbar Police Station Case no. 398/2021, registered under Sections 120B/498A/354A/376/511/325, Indian Penal Code [IPC].

¶24

In the First Information Report [FIR], lodged on 08.11.2021, the informant has named the present five petitioners as accused. The petitioner no. 1 is the husband of the informant whereas the petitioner no. 2 and the petitioner no. 3 are the brothers-in-law of the informant. The petitioner no. 4 and the petitioner no. 5 are the father-in-law and the mother-in-law of the informant respectively.

¶25

In the FIR, the informant has inter alia alleged that the marriage was solemnized between her and the petitioner no. 1 about 3 ½ months before. After the marriage, the in-laws of the informant used to ill-treat her both physically and mentally. A specific allegation has been made against the petitioner no. 4 i.e. the father-in-law of the informant to the effect that he often tried to sexually assault her and an

¶26

Page No.# 3/4

¶27

incident of 06.08.2021 was referred to that effect in the FIR. It has been alleged that the informant was driven out of the matrimonial house by the accused persons with a demand of dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

¶28

Mr. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners never misbehaved the informant. It is the informant who is of quarrelsome nature and is not interested to live in the joint family set-up.

¶29

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the concerned case diary and submitted that the informant has made certain allegations against the petitioner no. 4 in her statement recorded under Section 161, CrPC.

¶30

I have perused the materials available in the case diary, collected during the course of investigation carried out so far.

¶31

On such perusal, it is found that the independent witnesses have mentioned that the informant used to quarrel with the female members in the in-laws family. Allegation against the petitioner no. 4 is to the effect that he often give obscene gestures to the informant.

¶32

This Court on 24.11.2021 while calling for the case diary, had provided interim protection to the petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 and they have appeared before the I.O. and got their statements recorded, which are available in the case diary.

¶33

Having regard to the materials available in the case diary, collected during the investigation carried out so far, this Court is of the considered view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners for the purpose of carrying out further investigation into the case is not necessary and their release on pre-arrest bail, at this stage of investigation, is not likely to cause any prejudicial effect in the further investigation of the case, provided they to extend their assistance and co-operation in the further investigation of the case.

¶34

Accordingly, the interim protection granted to the petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 by order dated 24.11.2011 is hereby made absolute. In so far as the petitioner no. 4 is concerned, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the petitioner no. 4 viz. Habibar Rahman in connection with Baghbar Police Station Case no. 398/2021, he shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one local surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject to the conditions that :

¶35

[i] the petitioner no. 4 shall appear before the I.O. of the case within 10 [ten] days from today;

¶36

Page No.# 4/4

¶37

[ii] all the petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation whenever required by the I.O. of the case;

¶38

[iii] all 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;

¶39

[iv] all the petitioners shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;

¶40

[v] all the petitioners shall maintain law and order and he shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or of the commission of which they are suspected;

¶41

The bail application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

Comparing Assistant

Amir Hamja and 4 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amir Hamja 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

M/S N.A. Enterprise Vs Bodoland Territorial Council and 5 Ors.

Thulunga Boro Vs Bodoland Territorial Council and 5 Ors.

Chungpao Dimngel Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Dr. Jyotirmay Dev Sarma Vs the State of Assam

Md. Shahijul Hoque Vs the State of Assam

Lakhan Das Vs the State of Assam