Allowed

Subham Sharma v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC9 Nov 2022AB/2755/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge order disposing of a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, citing his role as a whistleblower, cooperation with investigation, and parity with co-accused already on bail, making interim protection absolute.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted pre-arrest bail; interim protection orders made absolute on same terms and conditions; case diary sent back.

Subham Sharma Vs the State of Assam — Anticipatory Bail | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010191272022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB/2755/2022

¶5

SUBHAM SHARMA

¶6

S/O- SURESH SHARMA, R/O- BISHNU NAGAR, H.NO. 12, PANJABARI, P.S. SATGAON, DIST.- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY P.P., ASSAM

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. C K NATH

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶11

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Date : 09.11.2022.

¶14

Heard Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. N. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

¶15

This is an application u/s 438 Cr.P.C., filed by the petitioner namely, Subham

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

Sharma, praying for pre-arrest bail in respect of the Gorchuk P.S. case No. 273/2022 u/s 420/34 of IPC.

¶18

The FIR reveals that the petitioner along with co-accused lodged a complaint before the Transport Department, Government of Assam alleging that M/s Harmony issued SLD fitment certificate to the owner of the commercial vehicles without fitting the proper devices in their respective vehicles. On being inquired, it reveals that the co-accused person had taken away the SLD device from his office and claimed to be fitted in a vehicle bearing No. AS-32C-1734 but in fact he has not fitted the same in the aforesaid vehicle and instead he had fitted a different device which is ordinary in nature and also not approved by the Government of Assam and the said ordinary device was known to be procured from the present petitioner.

¶19

Mr. Kamar, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the whistleblower and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further states that the petitioner has appeared before the investigating officer and is co-operating with the investigation. He has also submitted that the co-accused person in this case has already been enlarged on bail by this court vide order dated 31.10.2022.

¶20

Ms. N. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the petitioner has appeared before the investigating officer and has co-operated with the investigation.

¶21

In view of such facts and on the ground of parity as well as the materials available in the case diary, the petitioner’s granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail.

¶22

Accordingly, the interim protection granted to the petitioner by this Court, vide order dated 21.09.2022, is made absolute on the same terms and conditions.

¶23

Page No.# 3/3

¶24

Send back the case diary.

¶25

The bail application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

Comparing Assistant

Subham Sharma v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subham Sharma 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

Kushadev Mahanta Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Thokchom Surjit Singh Vs the State of Assam

Dilip Nath and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Md. Abdul Mozid Vs the State of Assam

Sohor Bhanu and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Ajibor Rahman @ Azibar Ali Khandakar Vs the State of Assam