Allowed

Md. Mostafiazur Rahman v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC17 Aug 2022AB/106/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case involving forgery of a bank NOC. Finding that a subsequent NOC from the bank clarified the account status as liquidated, the court held that custodial interrogation was not necessary and allowed the bail subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was granted pre-arrest bail on a bond of Rs. 40,000/- with one surety, subject to standard conditions of availability and non-obstruction.

Md. Mostafiazur Rahman Vs the State of Assam — Cheating and Forgery | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC010006362022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB/106/2022

¶5

MD. MOSTAFIAZUR RAHMAN S/O LATE MANIRUDDIN AHMED PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILL- SIMELIBARI P.O. MANDAKATA DUMUNICHOWKI, P.S. BAIHATA CHARIALI, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN-781381

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R P SARMAH

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶10

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Date : 17.08.2022

¶13

Heard Mr. R.P. Sarmah, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. T. Som, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Bhaskar Sarma, learned APP

¶14

Page No.# 2/6

¶15

appearing for the State.

¶16

Apprehending arrest in connection with Baihata Chariali P.S. Case No. 334/2021 under sections 199/468/471/420 IPC, the petitioner has filed this application under section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶17

The learned APP has produced the case diary and has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that this is a third pre-arrest bail application and the previous two applications were rejected by this Court. It is submitted that the ground on which the present pre-arrest bail has been preferred for the third time requires no further consideration on account of the fact that the said grounds were referred to in the previous orders of the Court vide order dated 02.09.2021 passed in AB 2187/2021 and order dated 04.10.2021 passed in AB 2989/2021. It is also submitted that as per the case diary, in order to apply for loan from Ujjivan Small Finance Bank, the petitioner has forged NOC of Assam Gramin Vikash Bank and the said forgery came to light only when the NOC was sent for confirmation to Assam Gramin Vikash Bank and the authorities of the said bank had responded by stating that the NOC produced by the petitioner was forged. Therefore, it is submitted that as the petitioner has used a forged NOC for applying for a loan from other bank, the petitioner is not entitled to pre-arrest bail as the offence is related to an economical offence.

¶18

On perusal of the case diary, it appears that the petitioner was maintaining a loan account with Assam Gramin Vikash Bank and he wanted to shift his loan account to Ujjivan Small Finance Bank and therefore, by repaying the loan amount, he produced before the other bank a statement of account showing zero balance as on 31.05.2021. The other bank required the petitioner to submit a NOC from the previous bank. Investigation reveals that the NOC was forged by the petitioner. Later on, the informant of FIR dated 17.07.2021 by

¶19

Page No.# 3/6

¶20

an affidavit before this Court in connection with AB 2187/2021 had sworn that the case was filed mistakenly. Nonetheless, this Court by order dated 02.09.2021 passed in AB 2187/2021 had rejected the prayer for pre-arrest bail to the petitioner by discarding the said affidavit. It further appears that subsequently the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank had given a NOC to the petitioner of having liquidated the loan. Nonetheless, this Court by order dated 04.10.2021 passed in AB 2989/2021 had also rejected the second prayer for pre-arrest bail.

¶21

It appears from the sequence of event that on 31.05.2021, the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank issued a statement of account showing zero balance as on 31.05.2021. Thereafter, as the Ujjivan Small Finance Bank requires NOC, there is no note that the petitioner had produced a forged NOC dated 01.06.2021. On confirmation, the said bank purported the NOC dated 01.06.2021 as forged and accordingly, the FIR was filed by the Ujjivan Small Finance Bank on 17.07.2021. In connection with AB 2187/2021, the first informant of Ujjivan Small Finance Bank had filed an affidavit that the case was mistakenly filed. However, the Branch Manager of Ujjivan Small Finance Bank had lodged another FIR on 19.07.2021 regarding the said offence of manufacturing of forged NOC dated 01.06.2021. In the meanwhile, the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank had issued another NOC dated 05.06.2021 (Annexure-IV) indicating that the loan account No. 7060250008662 has been liquidated and the petitioner is released from the liability.

¶22

On perusal of the case diary, what appears is that the scrutiny is different from what is projected in the FIR. Keeping in mind the date of second FIR, which is 19.07.2021, it is seen that by letter dated 22.07.2021, the Manager of Assam Gramin Vikash Bank wrote to the Officer-in-Charge of Baihata Chariali P.S. indicating that loan account No. 7060250008662 was closed

¶23

Page No.# 4/6

¶24

on 05.06.2021. The said contents of the letter correspond with the second NOC, which is granted by Assam Gramin Vikash Bank to the petitioner on 05.06.2021. The copy of the said NOC dated 05.06.2021 certified by the concerned officer of the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank to be true is also annexed with the said letter dated 22.07.2021. In a previous communication dated 03.07.2021, the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, Dumuni Chowki Branch has written to the Officer-inCharge of Baihata Chariali P.S. reiterating that the account was closed on 05.06.2021.

¶25

Under such circumstances, it is apparent that the second FIR lodged on 19.07.2021 does not correspond with the facts which are otherwise revealed in the case diary. It is not disputed that after the reluctance of the informant of the first FIR dated 17.07.2021, not to prosecute the petitioner by the said FIR, the subsequent FIR dated 19.07.2021, though it implicates the petitioner of manufacturing a NOC dated 01.06.2021, yet on 19.07.2021, the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank had closed the said loan account w.e.f. 05.06.2021.

¶26

Under such circumstances, the court does not find that as on the date when FIR was lodged, there is any outstanding dues payable by the petitioner to the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, Dumuni Chowki Branch in loan account No. 7060250008662. In this regard, the Court is also inclined to observe that the petitioner is shown to have twenty loan accounts with Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, Dumuni Chowki Branch.

¶27

The aforesaid facts appears to have not been clearly disclosed before the Court when the pre-arrest bail of the petitioner was previously rejected by this Court by order dated 02.09.2021 passed in AB 2187/2021 and order dated 04.10.2021 passed in AB 2989/2021.

¶28

Page No.# 5/6

¶29

Therefore, while there is some materials against the petitioner in the case diary of having fabricated the NOC dated 01.06.2021, by the subsequent NOC dated 05.06.2021, the petitioner was exonerated by the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank against the hereinbefore referred loan account. Accordingly, the Court is of the considered opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not warranted in the present case.

¶30

Hence, in view of the aforesaid facts as revealed from the case diary, the Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner by providing that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, namely, Md. Mostafiazur Rahman in connection with the aforesaid case, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.40,000/- with one suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

¶31

The pre-arrest bail is granted on the following conditions:

¶32

I. The petitioner shall make himself available to the police or any other investigating agency or Court in the present case as and when required.

¶33

II. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. He shall not, in any manner, try to overawe or influence or intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶34

III. The petitioner shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation/trial.

¶35

IV. The petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner.

¶36

Page No.# 6/6

¶37

V. The petitioner shall appear before the I/O within 7 (seven) days from today and he shall continue to appear once in every 30 (thirty) days till his personal appearance is dispensed with by the I/O or charge-sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶38

Application stands disposed of.

¶39

Case diary is returned.

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

Comparing Assistant

Md. Mostafiazur Rahman v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Mostafiazur Rahman 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

Jogeswar Talukdar @ Jogesh Talukdar and 5 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Rose Uddin Ahmed @ Roujuddin Ahmed and 9 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Raju Ojah Vs the State of Assam

Jahidul Islam and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Anisul Islam Ahmed Vs the State of Assam

Kajim Uddin and Anr. Vs the State of Assam