Court rejected the petitioner's second application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC, holding no new grounds were pleaded. Finding ample incriminating materials and lack of traceability, the court concluded earlier rejection order remained valid.
The bail application filed under Section 438 CrPC was rejected for lack of merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010037312022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/606/2022
RABIN MEDHI
S/O LATE KUMUD MEDHI, P/R/A VILL-CHARANGBARI, P.O.-TAMULPUR, P.S.-TAMULPUR, DIST-BAKSA, BTAD
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S R RABHA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
Date : 04-04-2022
Heard Mr. S.R. Rabha, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner and Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State of Assam.
Page No.# 2/4
[CrPC], the petitioner viz. Shri Rabin Medhi has prayed for pre-arrest bail, apprehending his arrest, in connection with Rangia Police Station Case no. 710/2021, registered under Sections 120/409/468, Indian Penal Code for the second occasion after rejection of his earlier bail application, A.B. no. 3146/2021 by an order dated 26.10.2021 after perusal of the materials in the case diary.
Page No.# 3/4
in the case diary indicated that the petitioner had been treated in a hospital where he had incurred expenditure towards his medical treatment to the extent of Rs. 2,42,560/-, but the petitioner was found to have submitted a forged bill to the extent of Rs. 11,42,795/- by submitting certain forged medical bills. In the course of investigation, a reply from the concerned hospital authority was received clarifying that those medical bills were not issued by the said authorities in the hospital. Having found such incriminating materials against the petitioner including the prima facie presence of mens rea on his part, the previous application was rejected by the order dated 26.10.2021.
Page No.# 4/4
for pre-arrest bail only if there is a change in the fact situation or in law which requires earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. The grounds cited in this second application on behalf of the petitioner do not appear to be of any substance for re-consideration of the earlier order dated 26.10.2021 passed in A.B. no. 3146/2021.
Return the case diary.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a second pre-arrest bail application under Section 438 CrPC is maintainable when the first was rejected on merits without a change in facts or law.
Whether mere reliance on previous coordinate judgments grants parity when incriminating materials remain unaddressed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rabin Medhi
State of Assam represented by the Public Prosecutor
Manish Choudhury
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
