Allowed

Sanjarang Narzary v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC10 Nov 2022AB/1958/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case alleging impersonation by a candidate during CRPF recruitment. The court held custodial detention unnecessary as the petitioner appeared in the examination and cooperated with investigation.

What did the court decide?

The interim protection granted vide order dated 18.07.2022 is made absolute. The bail application disposed of.

Sanjarang Narzary Vs the State of Assam — Cheating and Forgery | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010138132022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB/1958/2022

¶5

SANJARANG NARZARY SO NILA NARZARY R/O VILL- KUMARSALI, P.O. B. LADANGURI, P.S. BIJNI DIST. CHIRANG, BTAD, ASSAM

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR R DHAR

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶10

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Date : 10.11.2022.

¶13

Heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

¶14

This is an application u/s 438 Cr.P.C., filed by the petitioner namely,

¶15

Page No.# 2/3

¶16

Sanjarang Narzary, praying for pre-arrest bail in respect of the Basistha P.S. case No. 562/2022(arising out of G.R. No. 4562/2022) registered u/s 419/420/34 of IPC.

¶17

It is to be noted here that the Basistha P.S. Case No.562/2022, under Section 419/420/34 IPC has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by one Amos Lanah, Assistant Commandant, CRPF, Guwahati, 9th Mile alleging inter alia that some other persons appeared on behalf of the candidates in PST/PET of recruitment of CT/GD Exam, 2021 on 26.05.2022 at Recruitment Group Centre, CRPF, Guwahati (Assam). During biometric verification, it was revealed that some candidates are not the same candidates who appeared in the first phase of recruitment i.e. CBE (Computer Based Examination) and they have also admitted that they were not the same person who appeared in CBE.

¶18

Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and even then he is being searched by the Police without any reason and therefore, it is submitted to allow the petition.

¶19

On the other hand Mr. K. K. Parashar, learned Addl. PP has vehemently opposed to the prayer of the petitioner.

¶20

After perusal of the case diary, it appears that there are cogent materials found against the petitioner and it is an admitted fact that the petitioner appeared in the examination on behalf of some other candidates. The petitioner has appeared before the investigating officer and is cooperating with the investigation.

¶21

Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the opinion that custodial detention does not appear to be necessary. The petitioner has not violated bail condition and he has co-operated with the investigation.

¶22

Page No.# 3/3

¶23

Accordingly, the interim protection granted to the petitioner by this Court vide order dated 18.07.2022 is made absolute on the same terms and conditions.

¶24

Send back the case diary.

¶25

The bail application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

Comparing Assistant

Sanjarang Narzary v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjarang Narzary 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. Abdul Mozid Vs the State of Assam

Subham Sharma Vs the State of Assam

Sohor Bhanu and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Biplab Bhattacharjee Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Manaranjan Brahma Vs the State of Assam

Nur Islam @ Nurul Islam and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam