Dismissed

Bosheh Munham v. the State of Ap

Gauhati HC11 Aug 2022AB/88/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court, Itanagar Bench disposed of an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail by directing the applicant to file a regular bail application before the Magistrate, as all implicated offences were determined to be bailable in nature.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; applicant directed to file regular bail application before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Longding.

Bosheh Munham Vs the State of Ap — Anticipatory Bail | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC040009322022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB 88/2022

¶5

1:Bosheh Munham

¶6

Son of Sri TingdanMunham,

¶7

Permanent Resident of Village Mopakhat, PO/PS Kanubari, District Longding, Arunachal Pradesh. Mobile No. 919774785815

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1:THE STATE OF AP

¶10

Represented by the Public Prosecutor.

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : G Taloh

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP

¶13

BEFORE

¶14

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Date : 11.08.2022

¶17

Heard Mr. G. Taloh, learned counsel for the applicant and also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

¶18

This application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is preferred by the applicant Shri Bosheh Munham, who apprehended arrest in connection with Kanubari P.S. Case No. 09/2022, under Section 143/142/324/336/34 IPC, for grant of pre-arrest

¶19

Page No.# 2/3

¶20

bail.

¶21

It is to be noted here that Kanubari P.S. Case No. 09/2022 under Section 143/142/324/336/34 IPC has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by one Shri Rankai Rangham & 10(ten) others on 02.08.2022, to the effect that Chanu football team had a quarter final match of independence, at Kanubari general ground, against Mopakhat team. While the game was on and the team chanu was leading the game with 3-0, the Mopakhat football team started playing aggressively and unprofessionally without any sportsman spirit which lead to a small quarrel and the supporters of Mopakhat football team started participating in the quarrel and rush with sticks, stones, iron rod, machete and with lethal weapons and attacked all the players on the ground.

¶22

Mr. G. Taloh, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the offences are bailable in nature, however, there is confusion amongst the Police Officers regarding the nature of the offence under Section 324 IPC as to whether the said offence is bailable or non-bailable, and therefore, the applicant approached this Court with a limited prayer so as to direct the investigating agency to consider the prayer of the petitioners in accordance with law.

¶23

On the other hand, Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that since all the offences are bailable, this Anticipatory bail is not maintainable and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the same. Mr. Ete, further submits that though the Section 324 IPC has been amended and made non-bailable, yet requisite notification has not been issued by the Government till date and as such the offence under Section 324 IPC is still bailable offence.

¶24

Having heard the submission of the learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record

¶25

Page No.# 3/3

¶26

and I find substance in the submission so advance by Mr. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶27

Since all the offences are bailable, this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable and the same stands disposed of with a direction that the applicant shall appear before the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate, Longding and file application for regular bail and in the event of filing such application the learned Court below shall consider the same in accordance with law.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Bosheh Munham v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bosheh Munham v. the State of Ap

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

Shri. Khehoshe Chishi Vs the State of Nagaland and Anr.

Shri. Shighoto Vs the State of Nagaland and 2 Ors.

Shri Muramong Vs the State of Nagaland and 5 Ors.

Geyi Lombi Vs Bommar Riba and 34 Ors.

Geyi Lombi Vs Bommar Riba and 34 Ors.

Lemman Mikham Vs the State of Ap