The Gauhati High Court rejected the petitioner's pre-arrest bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner was accused of using a minor to sell heroin and obstructing police duties. The court found the case serious and evidence sufficient to deny bail.
The pre-arrest bail application was rejected and the 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
GAHC010111562022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/1575/2022
IMRAN HUSSAIN S/O MD. ABDUL JABBAR R/O TINSUKIA MAHMARI PATHAR, P.S. LAHARIGHAT DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S M ABDULLAH P Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR
ORDER
24.06.2022
Heard Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also Heard Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State respondent.
This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is filed for granting the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, namely, Imran Hussain, apprehending his arrest in connection with Laharighat P.S. Case No. 157/2022 registered u/s 353/294/34 of the IPC read with Section
Page No.# 2/2
21(a) of NDPS Act.
The Case diary, as called for, is placed before the Court.
The allegation against the petitioner is that he used one minor boy to sell drugs. The said minor boy was apprehended by the local people with 0.25 grms of suspected brown sugar. Getting the aforesaid information, when the police went there, two persons namely, Imran Hussain (petitioner) and Sanidul Islam obstructed them in discharge of lawful duty to make that minor boy, namely, Harej free from the clutch of police.
A perusal of the case diary reveals that although small quantity of suspected brown sugar was seized from a minor boy, the seriousness of the case is that the present petitioner and another named above took the law in hand to forcibly get the said boy freed from the police custody instead of cooperating in lawful discharge of their duty. The petitioner used that boy in selling drugs. The F.S.L. report confirmed that the seized substance was heroin. The investigation is yet to be completed.
In view of the above backdrop of facts and evidence collected, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to grant the noble privilege of pre-arrest bail.
Accordingly, the pre-arrest bail application of the petitioner 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 should be granted to the petitioner apprehending arrest for alleged drug trafficking and obstruction of police duty.
Whether the collected evidence and gravity of the case make it a fit case for granting privileged bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Imran Hussain
The State of Assam
Ajit Borthakur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
