Allowed

Sunanda Das v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC15 Nov 2021Bail Appln./2999/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court granted bail to the applicant arrested under IPC sections 448, 294, and 354. Despite the Case Diary not being submitted by the police, the court deemed further custodial detention unnecessary and ordered release on a bond of Rs. 20,000 with a surety.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 20,000 with one local surety of like amount.

Sunanda Das Vs the State of Assam — Bail and Remand | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010176572021

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : Bail Appln./2999/2021

¶6

SUNANDA DAS

¶7

SON OF LATE BASANTA DAS R/O KULHATI HAJO , P.S. HAJO, KAMRUP, ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K D CHETRI

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 15/11/2021

¶15

Heard Mr. K.D. Chetri, learned counsel for the applicant. I have also heard Mr. D. Das, learned APP, Assam, appearing for the State.

¶16

The applicant herein was arrested on 02/10/2021 in connection with Bhangagarh PS case No.

¶17

595/2021 registered under Section 448/294/354 of the IPC and since then he is in custody.

¶18

Today, the matter was fixed for Case Diary. However, the learned APP submits that the Case

¶19

Page No.# 2/2

¶20

Diary has not yet been received. There is no explanation whatsoever as to why the Case Diary from Bhangagarh PS could not be produced even after the same was called for by this Court by order dated 29/10/2021.

¶21

By referring to the FIR, Mr. Chetri submits that the applicant was an employee of the hospital and he was assigned the duty to look after a Unit of 200 bedded ICU for COVID patient. Under the circumstances, the allegation made in the ejahar pertaining to misbehaviour with the complainant is not only vague but is also wholly absurd.

¶22

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the period of detention, I am of the view that his further custodial detention in this case would not be necessary. As such, it is hereby directed that the applicant, viz. Sri Sunanda Das be forthwith released on bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one local surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M).

¶23

Bail application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶24

JUDGE

¶25

sukhamay

¶26

Comparing Assistant

Sunanda Das v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunanda Das 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

Habijur Rahman @ Hafijur Rahman @ Habu Vs the State of Assam

Arjun Taid Vs the State of Assam

Nitesh Kumar Vs the State of Assam

Elahia Ahmod @ Md. Ahia Ali @ Ehia Ahmed @ Ahia Alom and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Ruhul Amin @ Rubul Vs the State of Assam

Jonmani Kalita and Anr. Vs the State of Assam