In a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. regarding a murder charge, the Court found direct incriminating evidence in the case diary. Rejecting the application, the Court held it was not fit to grant pre-arrest bail.
Pre-arrest bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was rejected. Case diary was 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
GAHC010103052022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/1458/2022
GOLAM HUSSAIN SON OF SORHAB ALI R/O KHELUWAPARA PT. II, P.O. KHELUWAPARA, P.S. JOGIGHOPA, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. B GOGOI
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR
ORDER
Date : 21.07.2022
Heard Ms. B. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent.
By this second petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, namely, Golam Hussain, has prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Jogighopa P.S. Case No. 06/2017 registered u/s 302/34 of the IPC.
Page No.# 2/2
The case diary, as called for, is placed before this Court.
It may be mentioned that the earlier pre-arrest bail application of the petitioner, being AB No.671/2017, was rejected by this Court vide order, dated 11.05.2017.
The FIR reveals the allegation that on 07.01.2017 at about 10 PM, the FIR named accused persons murdered the informant’s sister by taking the advantage of absence of other family members and left her body in the corn field behind the house of the informant’s sister.
The post-mortem report shows that cause of death is due to coma as a result of ante-mortem head injury.
A perusal of the case diary reveals direct incriminating evidence against the petitioner. The investigation is yet to be completed.
In the backdrop of facts and evidence so far collected by the Investigating Officer, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the pre-arrest bail application stands rejected.
Return the case diary.
This disposes of the anticipatory bail application.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail is maintainable when there is direct incriminating evidence and investigation is incomplete.
Whether the present case falls within the exception to grant pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
GOLAM HUSSAIN
THE STATE OF ASSAM
AJIT BORTHAKUR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
