Allowed

Kiran Gogoi v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC11 Aug 2022AB/453/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court disposed of an application under Section 438 CrPC for pre-arrest bail. The court made the petitioner's interim protection absolute, subject to conditions ensuring cooperation with the investigation, non-obstruction of evidence, and personal appearance during trial.

What did the court decide?

Interim protection granted to petitioner is made absolute subject to conditions of cooperation with investigation and non-obstruction of evidence.

Kiran Gogoi Vs the State of Assam — Anticipatory Bail | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010027422022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB/453/2022

¶5

KIRAN GOGOI SON OF SRI KHAGEN GOGOI R/O OLD AMOLAPATTY, BYE LANE NO. 6, WARD NO. 10, KRISHNA NAGAR, P.O., P.S. AND DIST. SIVASAGAR, ASSAM

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP.BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B PHUKAN

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶10

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶11

ORDER

¶12

11.08.2022

¶13

Heard Mr. B. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State of Assam.

¶14

By this application under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [CrPC], the

¶15

Page No.# 2/4

¶16

petitioner viz. Kiran Gogoi has prayed for the benefit of pre-arrest bail, apprehending his arrest, in connection with Dibrugarh Police Station Case no. 788/2019, registered under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code [IPC].

¶17

In the First Information Report [FIR], lodged on 15.05.2019, the informant, Dawar Wasim Ahmed represented that he took a Force Traveler vehicle under finance from M/s Cholamandalam Investment and Financial Company Ltd., Dibrugarh Branch vide a loan agreement dated 28.12.2016 at an EMI @ Rs. 28,287/-. Not being able to pay the remaining EMIs regularly, he handed over the possession of the vehicle to the petitioner on the condition that the petitioner would ply the said vehicle and pay the EMI to the financier, M/s Cholamandalam Investment and Financial Company Ltd. The officials of the financier, M/s Cholamandalam Investment and Financial Company Ltd. asked him to surrender the vehicle as the petitioner had also failed to pay the remaining EMIs. Accordingly, the informant surrendered the vehicle by writing a surrender letter on 25.10.2018. The informant has stated that he got surprised when the officials of the financier, M/s Cholamandalam Investment and Financial Company Ltd. visited his house and asked him to pay the remaining EMIs. Allegation is made that the officials of M/s Cholamandalam Investment and Financial Company Ltd. concealed the vehicle and some way they played a foul game with the informant in order to extract money by harassing him.

¶18

Mr. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a deed of agreement dated 03.08.2018 to submit that he had taken the vehicle from the informant with the assurance to pay the remaining EMIs but he defaulted in paying the EMIs subsequently.

¶19

Mr. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor who has received the case diary, has submitted that the informant though stated that he submitted the surrender letter, but he did not deliver the physical possession of the vehicle to the financier M/S Cholamandalam Investment and Financial Company Ltd.

¶20

The statement of the petitioner, recorded by the Investigating Officer [I.O.] of the case, goes to indicate that the petitioner after taking possession of the vehicle had unauthorizedly

¶21

Page No.# 3/4

¶22

entered into another agreement with one Mr. Debakanta Gogoi with the intention to sale the vehicle. It is submitted by him that the petitioner had disclosed that he did not have the possession of the vehicle and the vehicle has not yet been recovered.

¶23

The materials available in the case diary, collected during the course of the investigation, go to indicate not only the complicity of the petitioner but also suggestive of complicity of the informant and in that process, the vehicle in question has not been traced out till date. It also goes to indicate that the petitioner had appeared before the I.O. of the case as and when his presence was called for and his statements have been recorded by the I.O. of the case on more than one occasion. It does indicate that the petitioner has joined the investigation. The petitioner was provided interim protection by an order dated 16.02.2022.

¶24

Having regard to the allegations made in the FIR and the subsequent events that have occurred after the institution of the case; and considering the fact that the petitioner has joined the investigation and is cooperating with the investigation, this Court is of the considered view that custodial detention of the petitioner for the purpose of carrying out further investigation in the case appears not necessary and if the accused-petitioner is released on pre arrest bail, at this stage of investigation, further investigation of the case is not likely to be affected in any adverse manner, provided he continues to extend his assistance and cooperation in the further investigation of the case.

¶25

Accordingly, the interim protection granted to the petitioner by order dated 16.02.2022 is made absolute, subject to the following conditions:-

¶26

[1] The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and make herself available for interrogation as and when her presence is called for by the Investigating Officer (I.O.) of the case;

¶27

[2] The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;

¶28

Page No.# 4/4

¶29

[3] The petitioner shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;

¶30

[4] The petitioner shall maintain law and order and she shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or of the commission of which she is suspected; and

¶31

[5] The petitioner shall regularly remain present during the trial and co-operate the Court to complete the trial for the above offences, if charge sheeted in the case.

¶32

This application stands disposed of in the afore-mentioned terms.

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Comparing Assistant

Kiran Gogoi v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiran Gogoi 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

Johura Khanam Choudhury Vs the State of Assam

Tomser Ali and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Sabitri Boro Vs the State of Assam

Madhupriya Dasgupta and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Lila Dhar and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Priyam Das Vs the State of Assam