Allowed

Manju Baruah v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC5 Dec 2022AB/3366/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court granted absolute anticipatory bail to the applicant under Section 438 CrPC in a case involving cheating and fraud. The bail was granted considering the applicant's cooperation with the investigation and the fact that the material investigation is mostly complete.

What did the court decide?

Interim order dated 17.11.2022 made absolute in the same terms and conditions for pre-arrest bail.

Manju Baruah Vs the State of Assam — Cheating and Forgery | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010231122022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB/3366/2022

¶5

MANJU BARUAH

¶6

W/O SRI KHUKAN BARUAH

¶7

R/O D WARD, CHABUA UNDER CHABUA POLICE STATION, IN THE DISTRICT OF DIBRUGARH, ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D DAS SR. ADV

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶12

BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

05.12.2022.

¶15

Heard Mr. P. Choudhury, learned counsel for the applicant and also heard Mr. BB Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State respondent.

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

Apprehending arrest in connection with the BI(EO) P.S. Case No.2/2021, under Sections 120B/420/406 of the IPC, read with Section 4/5/6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, read with Section 5 of the Assam Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2000, this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is preferred by applicant, namely, Manju Baruah, for grant of pre-arrest bail.

¶18

The aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of one F.I.R., lodged by Writtick Boponas and four others on 21.01.2021, alleging fraud and cheating against the Director of Farezone Travels Ltd., which deals with the business of online promoting and advertising in Travel and Tourism related matters.

¶19

Mr. P. Choudhury, learned counsel for the applicant submits that this Court was pleased to extend interim protection to the applicant vide order dated 17.11.2022, and pursuant to the said order, the applicant appeared before the I.O. and her statement has been recorded and she has been cooperating with the investigating agency but she is again summoned by the I.O., fixing 15.12.2022, to appear before him and the applicant is no way involved with the offence alleged in the FIR and therefore, it is contended to make the interim order dated 17.11.2022, absolute, in the same terms and conditions.

¶20

On the other hand, Mr. BB Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P., Assam has produced the case diary before this Court and submits that the investigation so carried out by the I.O. till date reveals that the ATM card and the Bank Account of the applicant is used by her son-in-law, who is the prime accused in the case in hand, and the case is pending for arrest of the prime accused, however material part of investigation is almost complete and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the bail petition.

¶21

Page No.# 3/3

¶22

Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the Case Diary produced before this Court with the assistance of Mr. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶23

It appears that vide order dated 17.11.2022, this Court was pleased to extend interim protection to the applicant and pursuant to the said order, the applicant appeared before the I.O. and the I.O. has recorded her statement. Further, it appears from the case diary that the ATM card and the Bank Account of the applicant is used by her son-in-law, who is the prime accused in the case in hand.

¶24

Since the applicant has been cooperating with the investigating agency and since material part of investigation is almost over and there remains to arrest the prime accused only, this Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary and therefore, inclined to make the interim order, dated 17.11.2022, absolute in the same terms and conditions.

¶25

In terms of above, this anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.

¶26

The Case Diary be sent back.

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Comparing Assistant

Manju Baruah v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju Baruah 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

Hamid Ali Vs the State of Assam

Md. Atabur Rahman Vs the State of Assam

Nabajyoti Dutta and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Abdus Sabur Vs the State of Assam

Harun Rashid @ MD Harun Ali Vs the State of Assam

Michael Mili and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam