Allowed

Saumendra Kumar Barua and 3 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC8 Dec 2021AB/4108/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, officials of Numaligarh Refinery Ltd., sought pre-arrest bail under CrPC Section 438 in a police case alleging misconduct, corruption, and illegal occupancy filed by their suspended subordinate. The Court held custodial interrogation unnecessary and granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted pre-arrest bail of Rs.20,000/- each with one surety of like amount; Bail petition disposed of.

Saumendra Kumar Barua and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam — Corruption | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010210342021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB/4108/2021

¶5

SAUMENDRA KUMAR BARUA AND 3 ORS S/O SAILENDRA NATH BARUA R/O HOUSE NO. 17, RAMSA HILLS, KHARGHULI, GUWAHATI, PIN-781004

¶6

2: SHRI BHASKAR JYOTI PHUKAN S/O GOLAP R/O QUARTER NO. ESRAJ 5 NRL TOWNSHIP GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN-785699

¶7

3: SHRI ARUNI PROSAD CHAKRAVORTY S/O LATE SHYAM PRASOD CHAKRABORTY R/O QUARTER NO. ESRAJ 2 NRL TOWNSHIP GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN-785699

¶8

4: SHRI ASIF UDDIN AHMED S/O MAINUDDIN AHMED R/O FLAT NO. 106 TOWER 5 HIG UTTORAYON TOWNSHIP MATIGARA DIST. DARJEELING WEST BENGAL PIN-73401 VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶10

Page No.# 2/3

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N DEKA

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶13

BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

08.12.2021.

¶16

By filing this petition under Section 438 of the CrPC, the four petitioners namely (1) Saumendra Kumar Barua, (2) Bhaskar Jyoti Phukan, (3) Aruni Prosad Chakravorty and (4) Asif Uddin Ahmed have sought for pre-arrest bail in connection with the Golaghat P.S. Case No.1228/2021, under Sections 420/406/468/469/34 of the IPC.

¶17

Heard learned senior counsel Mr. K.N. Choudhury, appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. P.P., Assam, appearing for the State.

¶18

Also perused the record.

¶19

The present petitioner No.1 is the Managing Director, the petitioner No.2 is the Director (Technical), petitioner No.3 is the Senior Chief General Manager (Projects) and the petitioner No.4 is the Deputy General Manager (Project – IBFPL) of the Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. (in short ‘the NRL’) and the informant is the Asstt. Manager (IBFPL-Project).

¶20

Referring to the documents that have been annexed, the learned senior counsel submits that the petitioners conducted a disciplinary proceeding against the informant for various irregularities and misconduct. Initially the informant was placed under suspension and after conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding, he was demoted to a lower rank and the appeal so preferred against such demotion was also dismissed on 02.11.2021.

¶21

The informant, with certain ulterior motive, now come up with filing of the present FIR,

¶22

Page No.# 3/3

¶23

raising certain irregularities that have been committed by the present four petitioners, who are officials of the NRL, like there is illegal occupancy of the official quarter by the officials, that they, by misusing their power and position, indulged in corrupt practices, that some of them were also habitually late in attending their office and there is unauthorized absence of the present petitioners, etc. etc., which apparently indicates that such matters can be looked into by the higher officials of the NRL and the police has nothing to do in such irregularities, if any, that have been committed by the petitioners, while discharging their duties.

¶24

More particularly, while the informant was already dealt with by the present petitioners in the departmental proceeding, it can be considered that the present FIR has been filed only to harass the public officials.

¶25

Going by the entirety of the allegation and the background between the parties and the nature of accusation, this Court is of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the present petitioners is not at all necessary and they can be interrogated by the I.O., as and when necessary.

¶26

Considering all the above, the accused/petitioners named above are allowed to go on prearrest bail of Rs.20,000/- each, with one surety of like amount, in the event of their arrest by the arresting officer in connection with Golaghat P.S. Case No.1228/2021 and they will appear before the I.O., as and when required.

¶27

The bail petition stands disposed of.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Saumendra Kumar Barua and 3 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saumendra Kumar Barua and 3 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smti. Janti Sarmah and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Dipak Das and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Talim Gogoi Vs the State of Assam

Md. Farjul Hoque Vs the State of Assam

Utpal Medhi Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

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