Dismissed

Abhi Ghosh and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC13 Sept 2022AB/1800/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a murder case. The Court rejected the prayer and revoked interim bail granted earlier due to non-compliance with conditions, specifically failure to appear before the Investigating Officer and submit the bail bond within the allowed timeframe.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for pre-arrest bail rejected; interim bail granted on 28.07.2022 stands revoked; case diary returned.

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

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010127342022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB/1800/2022

¶5

ABHI GHOSH AND ANR SON OF SHRI HARIBHAKTA GHOSH R/O SHASTRI ROAD, WARD NO. 8, BONGAIGAON TOWN, P.O. BONGAIGAON, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM- 783380

¶6

2: SRI GOPAL GHOSH SON OF SHRI HARIBHAKTA GHOSH

¶7

R/O SHASTRI ROAD WARD NO. 8 BONGAIGAON TOWN P.O. BONGAIGAON DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM- 78338

¶8

VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. PRAN BORA

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶11

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Date : 13-09-2022

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶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. P.P. for the State.

¶16

The petitioners, namely, (i) Abhi Ghosh, and (ii) Gopal 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.

¶17

The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has 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 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’ 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.

¶18

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

¶19

Page No.# 3/4

¶20

opposed the prayer for bail.

¶21

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

¶22

It appears from the case diary that after the petitioners were granted interim pre-arrest bail by order dated 28.07.2022, they have not appeared before I.O. within the 15 (fifteen) days’ time allowed and they have not submitted their bail bond and they have not cooperated with the investigation. Thus, in the absence of their statement, there has been no progress in the investigation of the case.

¶23

Hence, the Court is of the considered opinion that as the petitioners have not complied with the conditions on which interim bail was granted by order dated 28.07.2022, the petitioners have become disentitled to the privilege of pre-arrest bail.

¶24

Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioners, namely, (i) Abhi Ghosh, and (ii) Gopal Ghosh, for pre-arrest bail in connection with Bongaigaon P.S. Case No. 274/2022 under section 302 of IPC is rejected. The interim prearrest bail granted by order dated 28.07.2022 stands revoked.

¶25

Page No.# 4/4

¶26

9. The case diary is returned.

¶27

Application is disposed of.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Abhi Ghosh and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhi 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

Haribhakta Ghosh and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Sukiton Nessa Vs the State of Assam

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