Dismissed

Saidur Rahman and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC4 Mar 2022AB/475/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court rejected a second application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC filed by petitioners charged with rape and robbery. The court held that no change in facts or circumstances existed to reconsider the earlier rejection order dated 26.10.2021.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners? pre-arrest bail application under Section 438 CrPC rejected with costs.

Saidur Rahman and Anr. Vs the State of Assam — Cheating and Forgery | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No. 1/3

¶2

GAHC010028952022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB/475/2022

¶5

SAIDUR RAHMAN AND ANR S/O ABU BAKKAR SIDDIK VILL- BANGALIPARA PART-2 (TULUPARA) P.S. BILASIPARA, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM

¶6

2: ROFIKUL ISLAM @ HAM BABU S/O SEKENDAR ALI VILL- BANGALIPARA PART- 2 (TULUPARA) P.S. BILASHIPARA DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S RANA

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶10

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Date : 04-03-2022

¶13

Heard Mr. S. Rana, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B. Sharma, 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. 2/3

¶16

petitioners viz. [1] Saidur Rahman and [2] Rofikul Islam @ Ham Babu have approached this Court seeking the benefit of pre-arrest bail, apprehending their arrest, in connection with Bilasipara Police Station Case No. 2794/2021 registered for offences punishable under Sections 395/376/436, Indian Penal Code [IPC] for the second occasion after rejection of their earlier bail application, AB no. 2794/2021 which these two petitioners had along with another co-accused viz. Rofikul Islam @ Ham Babu, by an order dated 26.10.2021.

¶17

In the First Information Report [FIR], the informant has alleged that the 3 [three] named accused persons along with 4 [four] other unknown persons had entered the house of the informant when the husband of the informant was not present in the house. There is allegation of forceful rape upon the informant and burning of house by the assailants. Allegation is also made to the effect that there was looting of cash and gold and silver ornaments.

¶18

Mr. Rana, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the prior to the FIR lodged against the petitioners on 11.07.2021, the petitioners’ side had lodged an FIR on 08.07.2021 against the husband of the informant in Bilasipara Police Station Case no. 605/2021. The said FIR was registered as Bilasipara Police Station Case no. 600/2021. It is his submission that the FIR against the petitioner was lodged as a counter blast to the FIR in Bilasipara Police Station Case no. 600/2021.

¶19

Mr. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor who has received both the case diaries of Bilasipara Police Station Case no. 605/2021 and Bilasipara Police Station Case no. 600/2021, has submitted that there are 4 [four] days gap between the two FIRs. The institution of earlier FIR does not change the overt acts of the two petitioners herein in the incident narrated in the FIR of Bilasipara Police Station Case no. 605/2021.

¶20

I have considered the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available in the case dairy.

¶21

In the order dated 26.10.2021, this Court while rejecting the earlier bail prayer of the

¶22

Page No. 3/3

¶23

petitioners, had observed as under :-

¶24

“6. The materials of the case diary have been perused. The independent witnesses have corroborated that the assailants had set the kitchen of the informant at fire. They have also supported the version that there was commission of robbery/dacoity. The informant in her statement recorded under Section 164, CrPC has stated that she was forcefully raped by the 3 [three] named accused persons i.e. the present accusedpetitioners in that incident.

¶25

The informant in her statement recorded under Section 164, CrPC had stated that she was forcefully raped by the present two petitioners.

¶26

After rejection of an application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438, CrPC earlier, there is scope to file a subsequent bail application for pre-arrest bail if there is change in the fact situation or in law, which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has to be reconsidered in view of subsequent events.

¶27

In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that there is no change in the facts and the circumstances of the case which necessitates any reconsideration of the earlier order dated 26.10.2021. Accordingly, this application seeking the benefit of pre-arrest bail under Section 438, CrPC for the second occasion stands rejected.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Saidur Rahman and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saidur Rahman and Anr. 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

Jamal Uddin Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Dr. Shahinur Islam and 3 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Momotaj Bibi and 12 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 9 Ors.

Mehbub Rahman Barbhuiya @ Bappi Barbhuiya Vs the State of Assam

Assam Tea Employees Provident Fund Organisation and 2 Ors. Vs Madarkhat Tea Company Pvt. Ltd.

Md. Johirul Islam Vs the State of Assam