The Gauhati High Court held that an anticipatory bail application is not maintainable when all implicated offences are bailable, directing the applicant to seek regular bail before the Judicial Magistrate instead.
Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. dismissed; applicant directed to apply for regular bail before the Judicial Magistrate.
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.# 1/3
GAHC040009332022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : AB 89/2022
1:Lemman Mikham Son of Lt. Ate Mikham, Permanent Resident of Village Mopakhat, PO/PS Kanubari, District Longding, Arunachal Pradesh. Mobile No. 918974810358
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF AP Represented by the Public Prosecutor.
Advocate for the Petitioner : G Taloh
Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP
BEFORE
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
ORDER
Date : 11.08.2022
Heard Mr. G. Taloh, learned counsel for the applicant and also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.
This application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is preferred by the applicant Shri Lemman Mikham, 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-
Page No.# 2/3
arrest bail.
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.
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.
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.
Having heard the submission of the learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record
Page No.# 3/3
and I find substance in the submission so advance by Mr. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
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.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is maintainable where the charges involve only bailable offences.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Lemman Mikham
The State of Assam
Robin Phukan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
