Dismissed

Juganta Swargiary v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC15 Dec 2021AB/784/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this pre-arrest bail petition under Section 438 CrPC, the petitioner, accused of cheating, misappropriation, and criminal breach of trust involving a vehicle loan, failed to explain his conduct. The Court held it was not a fit case for bail and rejected the application.

What did the court decide?

The bail application was rejected; interim bail was vacated; case diary was to be returned.

Juganta Swargiary Vs the State of Assam — Cheating and Forgery | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010047282021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB/784/2021

¶5

JUGANTA SWARGIARY

¶6

S/O SRI ANIL SWARGIARY, R/O VILL-KAMARKUCHI, P.O.-KAMARKUCHI, P.S.-SONAPUR, DIST-KAMRUP(M), ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S A 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

15.12.2021

¶15

By filing this petition under Section 438 of the CrPC, the petitioner, namelySri Juganta Swargiary, has prayed for pre-arrest bail in connection with Sonapur P.S. Case No.153/2021, registered under Section 406/420/506 of the IPC (corresponding to G.R. No.3448/21).

¶16

Page No.# 2/2

¶17

Heard learned counsel for both sides. Also perused the case diary as well as the documents so annexed.

¶18

So far as the allegation is concerned, the petitioner took a vehicle of the informant by executing a deed of agreement on 03.11.2018 with an undertaking that he will pay the loan of the vehicle of the informant which was under hypothecation and the informant on the basis of the said agreement delivered the vehicle to him with condition to pay the EMI but subsequently the notice received from the bank authorities, the informant came to know that neither any EMI was paid by the petitioner nor the informant was informed about pending EMI of the vehicle bearing registration no.AS-01-BQ-8942 (Model- Wagon R, Maruti Suzuki). Now, the petitioner although admitted about the agreement so executed but he could not offer any reasons for non payment of the EMI or nor return the vehicle to the informant which was taken far back in the year 2018.

¶19

The complicity of the petitioner is made out from his conduct himself that the vehicle has now been misappropriated by him.

¶20

Considering all entirety, this court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to grant privilege of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, same stands rejected.

¶21

The bail application stands disposed.

¶22

Interim bail passed earlier stands vacated.

¶23

Return the Case diary.

¶24

JUDGE

¶25

Comparing Assistant

Juganta Swargiary v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juganta Swargiary 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

Sanjib Kumar Nath Vs the State of Assam

Papu Moni Ozah Vs the State of Assam

Nurul Islam and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Smti. Banti Lalung and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Sri Ranjit Deori Vs the State of Assam

M/S Lakhimi Finance and Lakhimi Enterprise Vs Saurabh Kumar Gogoi and Anr. (E)