The Gauhati High Court rejected the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.P.C. regarding sections 420/406/409 IPC, citing the case diary's implication of fraud.
The prayer for bail is rejected and the application is disposed of. Case diary returned.
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.# 1/2
GAHC010072742022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/1040/2022
TILAK DEB
S/O- PRADIP KUMAR DEB, R/O- 147 COLLEGE ROAD, NEAR GITA STEEL INDUSTRIES ERAKOPILI, P.S. JAMUNAMUKH, PIN- 782428, DIST. HOJAI, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE P.P., ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR F HAQUE
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
ORDER
Date : 11.08.2022
Heard Mr. F. Haque, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned APP appearing for the State.
Apprehending arrest in connection with Jamunamukh P.S. Case No. 25/2022 under sections 420/406/409 IPC, the petitioner has filed this
Page No.# 2/2
application under section 438 Cr.P.C.
The learned APP has produced the case diary and has opposed the prayer for bail.
On perusal of the case diary, the impression which is gathered is to the effect that the United Bank of India, Jamunamukh Branch had shown loan to have been disbursed in the name of the informant and it appears that the petitioner herein was the actual beneficiary of the said loan without any knowledge of the informant. It also appears that although the informant had made a RTI query from the Branch Manager of the said bank relating to loan shown in his name, the disclosures were not made by the bank and it was assured that the matter would be settled.
Therefore, it appears that the case diary implicates the petitioner of commission of fraud. Hence, the Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected.
Application stands disposed of.
Case diary is returned.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving alleged fraud.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
TILAK DEB
THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE P.P., ASSAM
KALYAN RAI SURANA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
