Allowed

Rasendra Ch Das v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC13 Dec 2022AB/2858/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed an application under Section 438 CrPC for pre-arrest bail to an applicant charged with misappropriation of government money. The court noted co-accused was already bailed and investigation was incomplete.

What did the court decide?

Application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC is allowed; applicant to be enlarged on bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety.

Rasendra Ch Das Vs the State of Assam — Corruption | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010197762022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB/2858/2022

¶5

RASENDRA CH DAS S/O LT. RAMESH CH. DAS R/O RUKHNEE PART-3, UNDER DHOLAI P.S. DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BORA

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶10

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER

¶11

13.12.2022

¶12

Heard Mr. A.M. Bora, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. C. Choudhury, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. S.H. Bora, learned

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

¶15

Apprehending arrest in connection with Kachudaram P.S. Case No. 14/2022, under Sections 120[B]/409/420 of the IPC, this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is preferred by applicant, namely, Sri Rasendra Ch. Das for grant of pre-arrest bail.

¶16

The said case has been registered on the basis of one F.I.R., lodged by one Smti Lipika Sinha, i/c Block Elementary Education Officer, Sonai, Cachar on 20.01.2022. The allegation against the present applicant relates to misappropriation of Government money with one Rahul Alom Borbhuiya, Cluster Resource Centre Coordinator of the concerned school.

¶17

Mr. Bora, learned senior counsel submits that the allegation leveled made against the present applicant are false and one of the co-accused has already been granted pre-arrest bail by this court in AB No. 1570/2022 vide order dated 08.07.2022, and he is ready to co-operate with the investigating agency, and therefore, Mr. Bora contended to allow the present application.

¶18

On the other hand, Ms. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, by producing the case diary before this court submits that the statement of the complainant is yet to be recorded but the other witnesses examined by the IO, has not implicated the present applicant with the offence alleged in the FIR.

¶19

Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully perused the petition and the documents placed on the record and also perused the case diary with the assistance of Ms. Bora, learned Addl. P.P.

¶20

It appears that the FIR was lodged on 20.01.2021 and since then the IO got sufficient time to investigate the case. But till date the IO could not record

¶21

Page No.# 3/4

¶22

the statement of the complainant. Further it appears from the case diary that the witnesses so examined by the IO have not implicated the accused with the offence alleged in the FIR and one of the co-accused has already been granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail by this court vide order dated 08.07.2022 in AB No. 1570/2022.

¶23

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also the nature of accusation and the punishment prescribed for the same, this Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the applicant seems to be unwarranted here in this case and accordingly, this court is inclined to allow this petition.

¶24

It is provided that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with Kachudaram P.S. Case No. 14/2022, under Sections 120[B]/409/420 of the IPC, he shall be enlarged pre-arrest bail on executing a bond of Rs. 25,000/- only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.

¶25

The above privilege is, however, subject to the following conditions:

¶26

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required;

¶27

(ii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person 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

¶28

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned learned CJM, Cachar, Silchar without prior permission.

¶29

In terms of above this AB stands disposed of.

¶30

Page No.# 4/4

¶31

The case diary be returned.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Rasendra Ch Das v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rasendra Ch Das 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

Nabajyoti Das Vs the State of Assam

Mrinal Baishya Vs the State of Assam

Musa Kalam Vs the State of Assam

Jagadish Sah Vs the State of Assam

Md. Manowar Akand Vs the State of Assam

Ujil Hojaisa @ Ujil Hojai @ Arnold Vs the State of Assam