Allowed

Haribhakta Ghosh and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC13 Sept 2022AB/1752/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a pre-arrest bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. against murder charge (IPC 302), the Gauhati High Court granted absolute bail to two senior citizens. The court found custodial interrogation unnecessary given their age and health issues, remanding them to the interim bail conditions with added attendance requirements.

What did the court decide?

Interim pre-arrest bail under section 438 Cr.P.C. made absolute with directions to appear before the I.O. daily for 10 days and monthly thereafter.

Haribhakta Ghosh and Anr. Vs the State of Assam — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010123072022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB/1752/2022

¶5

HARIBHAKTA GHOSH AND ANR

¶6

S/O. LT. DIGENDRA GHOSH, R/O. SHASTRI ROAD, P.O. BONGAIGAON, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM-783380.

¶7

2: SMT. GITA GHOSH W/O. HARIBHAKTA GHOSH R/O. SHASTRI ROAD P.O. BONGAIGAON DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM-783380

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY PP, ASSAM

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P BORA

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 13-09-2022

¶15

Heard Mr. P. Bora, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. K. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Bhaskar Sarma, learned Addl.

¶16

Page No.# 2/4

¶17

P.P. for the State.

¶18

The petitioners, namely, Haribhakta Ghosh and Gita Ghosh who are apprehending arrest in connection with Bongaigaon P.S. Case No. 274/2022 under section 302 of IPC, are seeking pre-arrest bail under section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶19

The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are both senior citizens. It is claimed that the petitioner no. 1 is aged about 70 years and the petitioner no.2, who is the wife of the petitioner is aged about 65 years. It was submitted that the petitioners are being falsely prosecuted as an accused. It was submitted that they had purchased land adjacent to the land of the victim and had initiated construction activity. It was stated that when the petitioners visit their land, the victim and her family members always complained that the construction materials of the petitioners were lying haphazardly near their residence, which caused inconvenience to them during ingress and egress. It was stated that the petitioner no.1, is suffering from renal problem and he also has heart problems. It was stated that after an altercation on 10.06.2022, the victim had committed suicide in an abandoned birth/bath room and as per the FIR, the dead body was recovered at 6.30 pm. However, in the FIR, it was narrated as if the petitioners and other members of his family had threatened to kill her and also projected as if the petitioners have murdered the victim lady. Moreover, it was submitted that on the date of the incident, the petitioners and his family had just entered into their new house after conducting the puja and therefore, it would be highly improbable that the petitioners would kill the victim by burning her.

¶20

The learned Addl. P.P. has produced the case diary and has

¶21

Page No.# 3/4

¶22

opposed the prayer for bail.

¶23

On a perusal of the case diary, it appears from the post mortem report that the burn injuries was present over the whole body except part of back of head, lower part of back of abdomen, genital region and part of soles, and it was recorded that – “Death was due to shock as a result of the burn injuries sustained over the body as described. All the burn injuries were

¶24

antemortem and epidermal to dermo-epidermal in depth covering approximately 90% of total body surface area.”

¶25

From the perusal of the rough sketch map, it appears that the birth/bathroom of the informant, where the victim had died is in between the house of the one Pradip Ghosh and the house of the informant in North to South direction. The house of the petitioners (accused) is in the West of the house of the informant, and the house of one Subrato Ghosh is in the East of the house of the informant. Thus, the place of occurrence is at a greater distance. Moreover, it is unlikely that a senior couple would be able to murder the victim by burning her, who was about 50 years of age.

¶26

From the medical reports annexed to this petition, it is projected that the petitioner no.1, who is 70 years of age has renal problems and heart problem.

¶27

It also appears that the I.O. had recorded the statement of both the petitioners.

¶28

Hence, the Court is of the considered opinion that under the

¶29

Page No.# 4/4

¶30

circumstances, custodial interrogation of the petitioners, namely, Haribhakta Ghosh and Gita Ghosh who are both senior citizens, is not necessary. Accordingly, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners by order dated 24.06.2022, in connection with Bongaigaon P.S. Case No. 274/2022 under sections 302 IPC, is made absolute on the same conditions.

¶31

As additional conditions for grant of pre-arrest bail, the petitioners are directed to appear before the I.O. again within 10 (ten) days and they shall continue to give their attendance before the I.O. once a month till their appearance is dispensed with or charge-sheet is submitted, whichever is earlier.

¶32

The case diary is returned.

¶33

Application is disposed of.

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Comparing Assistant

Haribhakta Ghosh and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haribhakta Ghosh and Anr. 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

Md. Ubaidur Rahman @ Waidur Rahman Qusemi Vs the State of Assam

Ala Uddin and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Atowar Ali Vs the State of Assam

Sukiton Nessa Vs the State of Assam

Abhi Ghosh and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Muhib Uddin Laskar and 5 Ors. Vs the State of Assam