The Gauhati High Court rejected an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The Court found that the case diary contained sufficient prima facie incriminating material regarding charges of extortion and cyber offence, deeming it not a fit case for pre-arrest bail.
Pre-arrest bail application rejected. 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
GAHC010113262022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/1584/2022
ROFIQUL ISLAM S/O BOSIR UDDIN R/O PUSHPARA PART-II P.S. BILASIPARA DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783348
VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S MUNIR
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR
ORDER
23.06.2022
Heard Mr. S. Munir, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.B. Gogoi, 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
Page No.# 2/2
pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, namely Rofiqul Islam apprehending arrest in connection with All Women P.S. Case No. 35/2022 registered u/s 384/507 of the IPC r/w Section 67(A) of the I.T. Act.
The Case diary, as called for, is placed before the Court.
The F.I.R. reveals the allegation that on 12.05.2022, the informant received a message from one mobile number containing an obscene video of her demanding an amount of Rs.3 Lakhs by threatening to make the video viral. Thereafter, she received lots of messages from two other mobile numbers also demanding money from her. The informant further stated that the aforesaid obscene video was actually a recording of a video call in compromising situation while she was in relationship with one person from Bihar.
A perusal of the case diary reveals that the victim is married having husband and 2(two) daughters. The petitioner is one of the main accused in the commission of the alleged offences. The case diary, as a whole, reveals sufficient prima facie incriminating material against the accused petitioner.
In the backdrop of facts and evidence as emerged from the case diary, this Court finds it not a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
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 the petitioner qualifies for an anticipatory bail order given the prima facie incriminating material in the case diary?
Whether the alleged offences under Section 384/507 IPC and Section 67(A) IT Act warrant pre-arrest bail?
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Rofiqul Islam
The State of Assam
Ajit Borthakur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
