Allowed

Md. Abdul Quddus @ Kuddush Ali v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC9 Sept 2022AB/1995/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case involving alleged criminal trespass, cheating, and threats related to a land sale dispute. The court held that interrogation was not necessary as the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Interim protection order dated 21.07.2022 made absolute granted as pre-arrest bail subject to conditions.

Md. Abdul Quddus @ Kuddush Ali Vs the State… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No. 1/3

¶2

GAHC010140432022

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : AB/1995/2022

¶6

MD. ABDUL QUDDUS @ KUDDUSH ALI S/O EUSUF ALI R/O VILL- JAMUGURI P.O. HATIZUZUA, P.S. JURIA DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR J C BORAH

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶11

BEFORE

¶12

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 09-09-2022

¶15

Heard Mr. J.C. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. N. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, State of Assam.

¶16

By this application under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [CrPC], the petitioner viz. Abdul Quddus @ Kuddush Ali has approached this Court seeking the benefit of pre-arrest bail, apprehending his arrest, in connection with Juria Police Station Case no. 210/2022 registered under Sections 447/379/506, Indian Penal Code [IPC].

¶17

Page No. 2/3

¶18

In the First Information Report [FIR], lodged on 06.06.2022, the informant has named 6 [six] persons as accused with the petitioner as the accused no. 1. In the FIR, it is inter alia alleged that in the year 2022, one Md. Mujammal Hussain [accused no. 2] agreed to sale a plot of land measuring 8 kathas 10 lessas to the informant and in exchange, a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- was given by the informant to Md. Mujammal Hussain [accused no. 2] after execution of an agreement before the Notary and delivery of possession of the plot of land. Allegation is made to the effect that on 02.06.2022, the accused persons named in the FIR at the instigation of the petitioner [accused no. 1], had criminally trespassed into the plot of land of the informant land and took away harvesting, paddy, etc. and they also threatened to kill the informant. Further allegation is made to the effect that the house of the informant was also burnt down.

¶19

Mr. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the sale of plot of land is a disputed fact as it was not purchased by the informant in any valid manner. There is an existing land dispute between the accused no. 2 and the informant. He has submitted that pursuant to the interim order dated 21.07.2022, the petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Officer [I.O.] of the case and has thereby, joined the investigation.

¶20

Ms. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor who has received the case diary, has submitted that the petitioner has appeared before the I.O. of the case and the statement of the petitioner recorded by the I.O. is available in the case diary.

¶21

Having considered the nature of the allegations made in the FIR and also the fact that the petitioner has since joined the investigation of the case by appearing before the I.O., this Court is of the considered view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner for the purpose of carrying out further investigation is not necessary and his release on pre-arrest bail, at this stage of investigation, is not likely to cause any prejudicial effect in the further investigation of the case, provided he continues to extend his assistance and co-operation in

¶22

Page No. 3/3

¶23

the further investigation of the case.

¶24

Accordingly, the interim protection granted to the petitioner by order dated 21.07.2022, is hereby made absolute, subject to the following conditions :

¶25

[i] the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer [I.O.] as and when his presence is required by the I.O. in the investigation of the case;

¶26

[ii] the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;

¶27

[iii] the petitioner shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;

¶28

[iv] the petitioner shall maintain law and order and he shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or of the commission of which he is suspected;

¶29

The bail application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Md. Abdul Quddus @ Kuddush Ali v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Abdul Quddus @ Kuddush Ali 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

Gopesh Deka Vs Phul Kumari Deka

Mrs Bornali Dutta Changmai and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Sanjit Paul Vs the State of Assam

Md. Majnur Ali and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Ratul Lahkar Vs Mrinal Ch. Das

Ratul Lahkar Vs Mrinal Ch. Das