Gauhati High Court dismissed an application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC filed by an accused in an NBFC cheating and fishing money case, holding it not a fit case due to sufficient incriminating materials and misappropriation of funds.
Application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC dismissed.
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.# 1/3
GAHC010182142022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/2629/2022
CHANDAN BORAH
S/O- SRI LAKHI BORAH, R/O- KUKURACHOWA, P.O. DIFALUSATRA, P.S. GOHPUR, DIST.- BISWANATH, ASSAM, PIN- 784169
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY P.P., ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A L MANDAL
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER
11.11.2022
Heard Mr. A.L. Mandal, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P. for the State respondent.
Apprehending arrest in BIEO police station case No. 19/2020 under sections 120[B]/420/406 IPC read with section 5 of APID Act, 2013 read with section 4/5/6 APC and MCS [B] Act, 1978. This application under Section 438 of
Page No.# 2/3
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is preferred by accused/applicant, namely, Moina Das for grant of pre-arrest bail.
The said case was registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by one Smti Purabi Majumdar, ASP BI [BEO] Assam on 03.11.2022. The allegation made in the FIR against the applicant is that one NBFC company in the name and style “Response Real Estate & Construction [P] Ltd.” collected huge amount of money from the public through various schemes, and later, fleed away without repayment of money on maturity of the schemes deposited by the investors. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and no way involved with the offence alleged in the FIR and the applicant is ready to cooperate with the investigating agency and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition.
On the other hand the learned Addl. P.P. by producing the case diary before this court opposed the petition and submits that the IO has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the applicant and his custodial interrogation is necessary and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition.
Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties I have carefully gone through the petition and documents placed on record and also perused the case diary produced before this court with the assistance of Mr. Gogoi.
It appears that the IO has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the applicant in support of the allegation made in the FIR. He was working as the Director of the company and it also appears that a sum of Rs. 10 Crore was collected from the investors and deposited the same in his account, and thereafter, misappropriate with the sum.
In view of the above materials so far collected in the case diary and also
Page No.# 3/3
the stage of investigation this court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the privilege of pre-arrest bail can be extended to the applicant.
Accordingly the petition stands dismissed.
The case diary be returned.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
3 issues framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC should be granted to the accused.
Whether the court should be satisfied that custodial interrogation is not necessary for the investigation.
Whether the privilege of pre-arrest bail can be extended to the applicant in the present case.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Chandan Borah
State of Assam
Robin Phukan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
