Allowed

Kironjoy Narzary and 2 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC8 Aug 2022AB/2026/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court considered an application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC. Finding that custodial interrogation was unnecessary as the petitioners had cooperated with the investigation and the police probe could proceed without prejudice, the court made an interim order absolute subject to standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

The interim protection granted previously by order dated 25.07.2022 is made absolute subject to three conditions of cooperation with investigation and non-interference.

Kironjoy Narzary and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam — Bail and Remand | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010141562022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB/2026/2022

¶5

KIRONJOY NARZARY AND 2 ORS S/O LEBEN NARZARY R/O VILL- SOUTH DUMBAZAR P.O. RAIMONA, GOSSAIGAON, DIST. KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM

¶6

2: MITISAR NARZARY S/O HIRAMBO NARZARY R/O VILL- SOUTH DUMBAZAR P.O. RAIMONA GOSSAIGAON DIST. KOKRAJHAR ASSAM

¶7

3: SANJAY BASUMATARY S/O DEBEN BASUMATARY R/O VILL- SOUTH DUMBAZAR P.O. RAIMONA GOSSAIGAON DIST. KOKRAJHAR ASSA

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A LAL

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶12

Page No.# 2/4

¶13

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Date : 08-08-2022

¶16

Heard Mr. A. Lal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. M. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State of Assam.

¶17

By this application under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [CrPC], the petitioners viz. [1] Kironjoy Narzary, [2] Mitisar Narzary and [3] Sanjay Basumatary have approached this Court seeking the benefit of pre-arrest bail, apprehending their arrest, in connection with Gossaigaon Police Station Case no. 226/2022 registered for offences punishable under Sections 447/427/353/34, Indian Penal Code.

¶18

It may be stated that Gossaigaon Police Station Case No. 226/2022, under Sections 447/427/353/34 of the Indian Penal Code, has been registered on the basis of one F.I.R., lodged by one Danesh Basumatary on 22.06.2022 to the effect that on that day, they found 3 nos. of pull carts and 2 nos. of bicycles loaded with Sal timbers inside the jungle of Raimona National Park during regular patrolling. In the meantime, while the driver of the departmental Zypsy vehicle was waiting for them inside the Raimona National Park, a group of miscreants coming out from the jungle, attacked him and also tried to kill him. The miscreants also pelted stones on the departmental Zypsy vehicle and caused damage to the same but the driver could recognize the miscreants.

¶19

Mr. Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that pursuant to the order dated 25.07.20218, all the petitioners have appeared before the Investigating Officer of the case and their statements have been duly recorded.

¶20

Page No.# 3/4

¶21

In response, Ms. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor who has received the concerned case diary, has submitted that all the petitioners have appeared before the Investigating Officer of the case and their statements recorded under Section 161, CrPC are available in the case diary. On a query made, Ms. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that no injury was sustained by the driver of the Zypsy on the date of the incident. As per the MVI report available in the case diary, the front glass and the door glass of the zypsy were found broken.

¶22

Having regard to the nature of allegations made in the FIR; and considering the materials available in the case diary, collected during the course of investigation carried out so far, which go to indicate that the zypsy did not sustain any injury; and that all the petitioners have appeared before the Investigating Officer of the case, thereby, have joined the investigation, this Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners for the purpose of carrying out further investigation of the case is not necessary and their release on pre-arrest bail, at the stage of investigation, is not likely to affect the further investigation of the case in any prejudicial manner, provided they continue to extend their assistance and co-operation in the further investigation of the case.

¶23

Accordingly, the interim protection granted to the petitioners by order dated 25.07.2022, is hereby made absolute, subject to the following conditions :-

¶24

[1] the petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and make themselves available as and when their presence is required by the I.O. in the investigation of the case;

¶25

Page No.# 4/4

¶26

[2] the petitioners 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; and

¶27

[3] the petitioners 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

The application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Comparing Assistant

Kironjoy Narzary and 2 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kironjoy Narzary and 2 Ors. 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

Nur Jahan Begom Ahmed Vs M S Manivannan, IAS and Anr.

Hasanuzzaman Sheikh Vs Dr (Smti) Alka Bhargava and 3 Ors.

Chamida Khatun Vs M S Manivannan, IAS and Anr.

Md. Nur Alom Sheikh Vs Md. Abdul Kuddush Sk. and 2 Ors.

Baharul Islam Vs the State of Assam

Pramananda Deori Vs the State of Assam