Allowed

Abdul Rofik v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC16 Aug 2022AB/1858/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court considered an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC for an accused facing charges of criminal mischief. After reviewing the case diary, the Court held that custodial interrogation was not necessary and granted the interim bail as absolute.

What did the court decide?

The interim anticipatory bail order dated 30.06.2022 was made absolute in the same terms and conditions.

Abdul Rofik Vs the State of Assam — Anticipatory Bail | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010132712022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB/1858/2022

¶5

ABDUL ROFIK

¶6

S/O- LATE OSMAN ALI, VILL. AND P.O. DHARMASALA, P.S. AND DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN- 783325.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

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

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I H SAIKIA

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶11

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Date : 16-08-2022

¶14

Heard Mr. I. H. Saikia, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. K. K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

¶15

Apprehending arrest in connection with Dhubri P.S. Case No.

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

221/2022, under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code , this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is preferred by accused/applicant, namely, Abdul Rofik , for grant of pre-arrest bail.

¶18

It is to be noted here that the aforesaid Dhubri P.S. Case No. 221/2022, under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code, has been registered on the basis of one F.I.R., lodged by Block Development Officer, Gauripur, on 18.04.2022, to the effect that one Abdul Rofik, the husband of Smti Sahanaz Begum, GP Ward Member of Dharmasala Pt-V, from the Kashna Bibi, W/o Romjan Ali, bribed the beneficiary of PMAY-G, being ID No. AS1548593, amounting to Rs. 2,000/against PMAY-G houses.

¶19

Mr. I. H. Saikia, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that this Court, vide order dated 30.06.2022, has extended the privilege of interim pre-arrest bail to the applicant and accordingly, the applicant appeared before the I.O., but the I.O. did not recorded his statement on the ground that there is no material against him and therefore, it is contended to make the interim order dated 30.06.2022 absolute in the same terms and conditions.

¶20

On the other hand, producing the Case Diary before this Court, Mr. K. K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that there is no inadequacy of materials against the applicant in the Case Diary.

¶21

Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have

¶22

Page No.# 3/3

¶23

carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the Case Diary produced before this Court with the assistance of Mr. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶24

In view of the materials collected so far in the Case Diary, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the accused/applicant is not necessary in the interest of investigation and accordingly, this Court is inclined to make the interim order dated 30.06.2022, absolute in the same terms and conditions.

¶25

In terms of above, this anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.

¶26

The Case Diary be sent back.

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Comparing Assistant

Abdul Rofik v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Rofik 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

Niyir Lomi Vs Yomto Jini

Md. Shabuddin Vs the State of Ap

Geyi Lombi Vs Bommar Riba and 34 Ors.

Rakesh Dudharia Vs the State of Assam

Latho Sonowal Vs the State of Arunachal Pradesh

Sahid Ahmed Vs the State of Assam