The Gauhati High Court, Itanagar Bench dismissed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. as not maintainable since Section 324 IPC remains a bailable offence due to the absence of official notification regarding the amending Act.
Anticipatory bail application dismissed as not maintainable.
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.# 1/2
GAHC040011302023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : AB/52/2023
Devan Konia @ Tajum Konia
Son of Late Tade Konia, Resident of ESS Sector, Itanagar, PO and PS Itanagar, District Papum Pare Arunachal Pradesh.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF AP represented by Public Prosecutor
Advocate for the Petitioner : Chorpok Modi
Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP
BEFORE
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA
ORDER
Date : 21-08-2023
Heard Mr. A. Saring, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh.
Page No.# 2/2
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is maintainable given the non-bailable status under Section 324 IPC for lack of notification.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Devan Konia @ Tajum Konia
The State of AP
Nani Tagia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
