Dismissed

Manorul Islam Barbhuiya v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC2 Sept 2022AB/1771/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court rejected a third pre-arrest bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by a petitioner accused in an assault case which resulted in the death of the injured party due to complications. The Court held it was not a fit case to grant bail given the eye witness testimony and case diary facts.

What did the court decide?

The pre-arrest bail application was rejected; the judgment dismisses the petition.

Manorul Islam Barbhuiya Vs the State of Assam — Anticipatory Bail | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010123392022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB/1771/2022

¶5

MANORUL ISLAM BARBHUIYA

¶6

S/O- LATE JUWAID ALI BARBHUIYA, R/O- SEWTI PART-I, P.S. KATIGORAH, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE P.P., ASSAM

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P P DUTTA

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶11

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR

¶12

ORDER

¶13

02.09.2022

¶14

Heard Mr. P.P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State respondent.

¶15

This third petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is filed for granting the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, namely Manorul Islam Barbhuiya , apprehending

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

arrest in connection with Katigorah P.S. Case No. 678/2021 u/s 147/148/341/326 of the IPC r/w added Section 302 of the IPC.

¶18

The case diary, as called for, is placed before the Court.

¶19

The earlier pre-arrest bail applications of the petitioner being A.B. No. 2800/2021 and A.B. No. 4148/2021 were rejected by this Court vide orders, dated 16.11.2021 and 09.03.2022 respectively.

¶20

Mr. P.P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that initially the case was registered under Sections 147/148/341/326 of the IPC, but subsequently as the injured died after some days, the investigating officer, with the permission of the Court added Section 302 of the IPC. According to Mr. Dutta, the deceased was a habitual offender and involved in murder, drug trafficking etc. for which Katigorah P.S. Case No. 214/2021 was filed. However, Mr. Dutta submits that the petitioner, who is a businessman, has been roped into the case on false accusation and on mere suspicion.

¶21

Opposing the pre-arrest bail application, Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, submits that the case diary reveals that the eye witnesses have implicated the petitioner.

¶22

The F.I.R. reveals the allegation that on 28.08.2021 at about 4 p.m., while the husband of the informant was returning home from Babur Bazar in his motorcycle along with one Taz Ahmed, the FIR named accused persons assaulted him with lathi and other sharp weapons causing injuries on various parts of the body and left him in unconscious state in front of the shop of the FIR named accused No. 5. The accused persons also assaulted Monjurul Islam Laksar and Safikul Islam Laskar, who went to his rescue, with sharp weapons. Subsequently, one Nesar Ahmed with the help of his brothers recovered the informant’s husband and other injured persons and sent them to the Hospital for treatment. It is further alleged that before the alleged occurrence, the petitioner No. 1 had been planning secretly to assault the informant’s husband, for

¶23

Page No.# 3/3

¶24

which, her husband filed a case at Katigorah P.S.

¶25

It may be noted here that after few days of the aforesaid incident of assault, the injured succumbed to his injuries.

¶26

The post-mortem report shows that the cause of death of Jamid Hussain Barbhuiya @Tiamoni was due to syncope following acute coronary insufficiency. All injuries were ante-mortem, caused by blunt force impacts and were homicidal in nature.

¶27

The eye witnesses account of the incident have stated that the petitioner and his associates being armed with dao, stick, iron bar, wooden bar and by fist blows assaulted the deceased as a result of which, subsequently he died. The investigation is yet to be completed.

¶28

Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in the backdrop of facts and evidence that emerged from the case diary, it is not a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

¶29

Accordingly, the pre-arrest bail application of the petitioner is rejected for the third time.

¶30

This disposes of the anticipatory bail application.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Manorul Islam Barbhuiya v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manorul Islam Barbhuiya 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

Ejash Narzary Vs the State of Assam

Md. Moinul Hoque Vs the State of Assam

Afaz Uddin and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Mobina Khatun Vs the State of Assam

Intajul Ali @ Intajul Hoque Vs the State of Assam

Sanjay Daimari Vs the State of Assam