Allowed

Krishna Kanta Roy v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC14 Sept 2022AB/2244/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a cheating/forgery case involving forged sale deeds. Court held custodial interrogation unnecessary as petitioner had already recorded a statement before the IO. Interim bail made absolute with condition to appear before IO within ten days.

What did the court decide?

Interim bail made absolute; petitioner directed to appear before IO within 10 days; case diary returned.

Krishna Kanta Roy Vs the State of Assam — Cheating and Forgery | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010153112022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB/2244/2022

¶5

KRISHNA KANTA ROY S/O LATE RAJESWAR ROY R/O VILL-NICHINTA P.O. AGIA P.S. GOALPARA DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM PIN-783120

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N K KALITA

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶10

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Date : 14-09-2022

¶13

Heard Mr. N.K. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned APP for the State.

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

The petitioner, namely, Krishna Kanta Roy, who is apprehending arrest in connection with Patacharkuchi P.S. Case No. 263/2015, under sections 120(B)/ 419/ 420/ 468/ 406/409 I.P.C., has filed this application under section 438 Cr.P.C., for pre-arrest bail.

¶16

The learned APP has produced the case diary and has submitted that the case diary has not been updated. However, he has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶17

On a perusal of the case diary it appears that the allegation is to the effect that the signature of the vendor was forged and two sale deeds were executed on 09.06.2014 and 02.02.2015 respectively in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Patacharkuchi by virtue of which the land of the informant and one Narmada Talukdar, wife late Upen Talukdar was sold. The informant and the wife of the deceased, late Upen Talukdar are the persons in whose names the land was mutated. So it appears that on the basis of the application for NOC for sale of the land, the petitioner as a Lot Mondal had given a report and thereafter, the NOC for sale was issued and the land was transferred. The case diary does not reveal that the petitioner gave any report with regard to the correctness of the signature of the vendor.

¶18

Under such circumstances, the Court is of the considered opinion that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner, namely, Krishna Kanta Roy, is not required, moreso, in view of the fact that the petitioner had appeared before the IO and his statement is recorded in the case diary. Hence, the interim bail granted by order dated 11.08.2022 is made absolute on the same terms and as a further condition of grant of bail, the petitioner is directed to once again appear before the IO within 10(ten) days from today.

¶19

Case diary is returned.

¶20

Page No.# 3/3

¶21

Application disposed of.

¶22

JUDGE

¶23

Comparing Assistant

Krishna Kanta Roy v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Kanta Roy 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

Haribhakta Ghosh and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Sukiton Nessa Vs the State of Assam

Abhi Ghosh and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Rohul Amin Vs the State of Assam

Baharul Islam and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Krishna Roy @ Krishna Kanta Roy Vs the State of Assam