This anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was rejected. The court, after hearing counsel and perusing the case diary, declined to grant pre-arrest bail regarding an IPC 380/34 charge.
No bail granted; application rejected.
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
GAHC010054072023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/879/2023
MAJIDUL ALI @ MOJIDUL HAQUE S/O AJIJUL HAQUE VILL- TUKURA PT.II P.S. AGIA DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR F HAQUE
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
ORDER
05.04.2023
Heard Mr. F. Hoque, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. K. K.
Parasar, learned Additional P.P., Assam appearing for the State, who has
produced the Case Diary.
This application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail
Page No.# 2/2
apprehending arrest in connection with Palashbari P.S. Case No.76/2023 registered under Sections 380/34 of the IPC.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the Case Diary, I am not inclined to grant the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the applicant. As such, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands rejected.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted to the applicant apprehending arrest in connection with Sections 380/34 IPC case.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Majidul Ali @ Mojidul Haque
The State of Assam
Suman Shyam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
