The Gauhati High Court made an interim bail order of 11.08.2022 absolute for the petitioner. The court considered factors like the petitioner's cooperation with investigation, non-availability of main accused, and parity with other directors.
The interim bail order dated 11.08.2022 was made absolute.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010158302022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/2250/2022
NAYAN KRO
S/O BHOBA RAM KRO R/O HOUSE NO. 54, NALAPARA, SORUSAJAI, GUWAHATI-781040
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. DITUL DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
B E F O R E
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
14.11.2022
Heard Mr. D. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State.
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for prearrest bail in connection with B.I. (E.O.) Police Station Case No. 24/2018 (GR 17189/2018) registered under Section 120(B)420/468/406 IPC.
Page No.# 2/2
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that vide agreement deed no. 3876 dated 27.04.2016 executed between M/s Gargi & Associates Private Limited and the petitioner, the petitioner had agreed to purchase a flat for an amount of Rs. 32,60,000/- and an amount of Rs. 26,08,000/- was already paid and the petitioner who has to pay of Rs. 3,26, 000/- out of the total of cost of the flat of Rs. 32,60,000/-.
It is submitted that the petitioner is the victim in this case because the petitioner was not allotted the flat for which he had already paid to Rs. 26,08,000/-. When he went to occupy the flat, he found that another person has been allotted the flat. It is submitted that other Directors of the company of M/s Gargi Associates Private Limited have already been enlarged on bail and the main accused Pranjal Kumar Bhoralee has passed away, but he was earlier granted bail.
I have heard the learned Addl. P.P. Mr. K.K. Parasar. I have also perused the case diary. It appears that the allegation are prima facie against the Pranjal Bhoralee, the Managing Director of M/s Gargi Associates Private Limited, who had ulterior motive for availing the loan amount. I have also considered the submission that the petitioner has co-operated with the investigation and has appeared before the I/O who has recorded his statement. It appears that if the petitioner is on bail, the investigation may not be affected.
I have also considered the bail petition on the grounds of parity.
Considering all aspects, interim order dated 11.08.2022 is hereby made absolute. The petitioner will abide by the bail conditions imposed upon him vide order dated 11.08.2022.
Accordingly, this bail application stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to make the interim bail order absolute in a case involving Section 120(B), 420, 468, and 406 IPC.
Nayan Kro
The State of Assam
Susmita Phukan Khaund
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
