Allowed

Pamor Ali and 2 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC4 Aug 2023AB/2323/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court granted pre-arrest bail to three petitioners in a case involving allegations under the IPC and Immoral Traffic Prevention Act. The court held custodial interrogation was unnecessary and directed release on bail upon furnishing a bond.

What did the court decide?

Released on pre-arrest bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.40,000/- with one surety of like amount, subject to appearing before IO within 7 days and not indulging in tampering with witnesses.

Pamor Ali and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam — Narcotics (NDPS) | Gauhati HC (2023)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010143632023

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB/2323/2023

¶5

PAMOR ALI AND 2 ORS S/O ENTAZ ALI VILL- MAJERALGA, PART-4, P.S. FAKIRGANJ, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM PIN-783324

¶6

2: SHORIFUL ISLAM @ SHAIFUL ISLAM S/O SABDER ALI VILL- DIMATOLA POYESTI P.S. FAKIRGANJ DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783324

¶7

3: HAMIDA KHATUN D/O PAMOR ALI W/O SHAIFUL ISLAM VILL-MAJERALGA PART- 4 P.S. FAKIRGANJ DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-78332

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K SARMA

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶12

Page No.# 2/4

¶13

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR

¶14

ORDER

¶15

04.08.2023

¶16

Heard Mr. A.K. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent.

¶17

This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is filed for granting the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, namely 1) Pamor Ali 2) Shoriful Islam @Shaiful Islam and 3) Hamida Khatun , apprehending arrest in connection with Fakirganj P.S. Case No.63/2023 under Section 370(A)(2) of the IPC read with Sections 4/5 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956.

¶18

The case diary of Fakirganj P.S. Case No.63/2023 is placed before the Court.

¶19

Mr. A.K. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the allegations made in the FIR are totally false and fabricated. Mr. Sarma submits that the petitioner No. 1 never called the wife of the informant, that is, the FIR named accused No.3, to his residence. In fact, Mr. Sarma submits that the informant had some marital disputes with the FIR named accused No.3, who is his first wife. Mr. Sarma further submits that on the day of the alleged occurrence, the wife of the informant came to the house of the petitioner No.1 to have some discussion regarding monetary issue with the petitioner No.2, but all of a sudden as a result of some conspiracy by the informant, some of his relatives and friends entered into the house and assaulted the petitioners. Mr.

¶20

Page No.# 3/4

¶21

Sarma also submits that in connection with the incident, the wife of the informant has also lodged another case which is registered as Fakirganj P.S. Case No.68/2023 under Sections 143/447/326/325/354/506 of the IPC.

¶22

The F.I.R., dated 30.03.2023 reveals the allegation that on 29.03.2023, the petitioner No.1 called the wife of the informant to his residence over phone by alluring her to give money and after administering intoxicating substance to her, made her indulge in prostitution with some persons who were called by him. On getting information about such illegal activities the local people went to the house of the petitioner No.1 at about 8.30 p.m. and caught them red handed and assaulted them and informed the matter to police. The police sent three injured persons to Dhubri Medical and arrested two accused persons. However, other two accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence.

¶23

The injury reports of Shomez Ali and Shoriful Islam shows no external injury on their persons.

¶24

Upon hearing the learned counsel for both sides and considering the pros and cons of the materials available on the case diary, this Court is of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioners in the interest of the ongoing investigation may not be required.

¶25

Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest, each of the petitioners, named above, shall be released on pre-arrest bail, in connection with the above noted case on furnishing bail bond of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject, of course, to the following conditions:

¶26

(i) That the petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer

¶27

within 7 days, failing which on and from the 8^th day, this pre-arrest

¶28

Page No.# 4/4

¶29

bail order shall have no force; and

¶30

(ii) That the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶31

This disposes of the anticipatory bail application.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Pamor Ali and 2 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pamor Ali and 2 Ors. 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

The State of Assam and Anr. Vs Abdul Khaleque

Jasbir Sangma Vs the State of Assam

Riyajuddin Ahmed @ Bhaiti and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Fulchan Ali @ Kalu and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Prabhat Rabha Vs the State of Assam

Ashique Mondal @ Larju Miah Vs the State of Assam