Dismissed

Rofikul Islam @ Rafikul Islam v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC18 May 2022AB/525/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court dismissed a second pre-arrest bail application under Section 438 CrPC. Finding no change in the fact situation or law since the earlier rejection based on the case diary, the court held the application was not merited despite the petitioner's counter-blast claim.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail application dismissed as there was no change in fact situation or law to justify interference with the earlier rejection.

Rofikul Islam @ Rafikul Islam Vs the State of Assam — Bail and Remand | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010032582022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB/525/2022

¶5

ROFIKUL ISLAM @ RAFIKUL ISLAM S/O JULU SHEIKH VILL- CHAUTARA P.S. CHHAYGAON DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A ALI

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶10

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Date : 18-05-2022

¶13

Heard Mr. A. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State of Assam.

¶14

By this application under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

¶15

Page No.# 2/4

¶16

(CrPC), the petitioner viz. Rofikul Islam @ Rafikul Islam has approached this Court seeking the benefit of pre-arrest bail, apprehending his arrest, in connection with Chhaygaon Police Station Case No. 1222/2020 registered for offences punishable under Sections 354A/448/376/294/506, Indian Penal Code after rejection of his earlier bail application, A.B. no. 605/2021 by an order dated 27.10.2021 after perusal of the materials in the case diary.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the First Information Report [FIR] against the petitioner in question is a counter-blast to an earlier FIR lodged in connection with Chhaygaon Police Station Case no. 1020/2018, registered on 04.10.2018, by the petitioner’s side.

¶18

Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor who has received the case diary, has submitted that against Chhaygaon Police Station Case no. 1020/2018, the other side had also instituted an FIR which was registered as Chhaygaon Police Station Case no. 995/2018.

¶19

The crime case, Chhaygaon Police Station Case no. 1020/2018 was registered on 04.10.2018 whereas the Chhaygaon Police Station Case no. 995/2018 was registered on 28.09.2018.

¶20

This Court while considering the earlier bail application, A.B. no. 605/2021 of the present petitioner had observed as under :

¶21

“3. In the First Information Report (FIR), the informant has alleged that the petitioner no. 1 had committed forceful rape on her in the night

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

intervening 28.11.2020 and 29.11.2020 after forcefully entering into the house of the informant when her husband was not present in the house. Against the petitioner no. 2, allegation is to the effect that the petitioner no. 2 being a relative of the petitioner no. 1, had threatened her not to file any complaint against the petitioner no. 1.

¶24

The concerned case diary, as called for, has been received and the same is perused.

¶25

In her statement recorded under Section 164, CrPC, the victim has clearly implicated the petitioner no. 1 for committing forceful rape upon her, thus, corroborating the version in the FIR. In such view of the matter, the prayer for pre-arrest bail in respect of the petitioner no. 1 is rejected.”

¶26

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present FIR against which the petitioner has sought the benefit of pre-arrest bail is a counter-blast to the earlier FIR cannot be accepted for the fact that the earlier incident had occurred as far back as in the year 2018. Against the said incident, there is an opposite version and which has been registered as Chhaygaon Police Station Case no. 995/2018 on the basis of an FIR from the opposite side of the petitioner.

¶27

It is settled that after rejection of an application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438, CrPC on merits, 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 become obsolete.

¶28

Page No.# 4/4

¶29

Considering the fact that earlier rejection petition was rejected after perusal of the materials in the case diary and on perusal of the case diary again, it is found that there is no change in the fact situation obtaining in the case as on date with regard to Chhaygaon Police Station Case no. 1222/2020. Thus, this application preferred for the second time is not merited and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

¶30

Comparing Assistant

Rofikul Islam @ Rafikul Islam v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rofikul Islam @ Rafikul Islam 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

Rafikul Islam Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Hasmat Ali Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

MD Yasin Ali and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 13 Ors.

Premchan Mandal and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 17 Ors.

Ramen Deka Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Debanan Basumatary Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.