Petitioners approached the court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail in a Vigilance case regarding MGNREGA expenditures. Considering the delay in FIR registration and prior verification, the court granted bail.
Granted pre-arrest bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- each with a suitable surety.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010023802021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/450/2021
AYAT ULLAH AND 3 ORS
S/O AMAN ULLAH, R/O VILL-NO. 1 MOUZADAR GAON, P.S.-LUMDING, DIST-HOJAI (ASSAM)
2: SAYED AHMED S/O LT TAZAMUL ALI R/O VILL-NO. 1 PIPAL PUKHURI P.S.-LANKA DIST-HOJAI (ASSAM)
3: YUSUF ALI S/O LT. SURUJ ALI R/O VILL-SING GAON P.S.-LANKA DIST-HOJAI (ASSAM)
4: HARI BANDHULAL TALUKDAR S/O LT RAJ MOHAN TALUKDAR R/O VILL-NO. 1 PIPAL PUKHURI SUBHAS NAGAR WARD NO. 1 P.S.-LUMDING DIST-HOJAI (ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
Page No.# 2/3
B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA
02-03-2021
This is an application, filed under Section 438 of the Cr.PC . seeking pre-arrest bail of the accused-petitioners, namely, 1) Ayat Ullah, 2) Sayed Ahmed, 3) Yusuf Ali, and 4) Hari Bandhulal Talukdar, in connection with Vigilance Case No.02/2020 registered under Sections 120(B)/406/409/ 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 13(2) of P.C. Act, 2018.
Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the Respondent State. Perused the case diary produced.
It appears from the materials in the case diary that the offence involved in this case pertains to the years from 2013 to 2016 and, the FIR in the instant case was lodged on 13.01.2020, after joint enquiry made.
The materials in the case diary suggest that the work/project involved in the aforesaid years was under the MGNREGA schemes was purportedly done and the money spent was, infact, about seven lakhs plus less than the sanctioned amount. However, some works have already been done.
Considering the fact as appearing from the materials in the case diary, particularly the fact that the offence relates to the years 2013 to 2016 and the FIR was lodged in the year 2020 and, also in view of the fact that, the scheme undertaken during those years have already been verified by a joint committee, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not essential and, hence, they are granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail.
Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the petitioners above named, in connection with the case aforementioned, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- each, with a suitable surety each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of arresting authority.
Page No.# 3/3
The direction for pre-arrest bail is subject to the conditions that the petitioners :
The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Return the case diary.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the accused-petitioners are entitled to an order for pre-arrest bail.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Ayat Ullah and 3 Ors
The State of Assam
Hitesh Kumar Sarma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
