Allowed

Ruhul Amin and 3 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC8 Nov 2023Bail Appln./3772/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court disposed of a bail application preferred by four accused persons accused of theft. The Court held that since the material part of investigation was completed and stolen bikes were recovered, further custodial detention was not required, allowing bail on bond.

What did the court decide?

Accused persons to be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M), after which the

Ruhul Amin and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam — Bail and Remand | Gauhati HC (2023)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010235082023

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Bail Appln./3772/2023

¶5

RUHUL AMIN AND 3 ORS S/O MOINAL HOQUE VILL- TIAPARA P.S. GOALPARA DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM

¶6

2: ANSER ALI @ ANSAR ALI S/O MOINAL HOQUE VILL- TIAPARA P.S. GOALPARA DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM

¶7

3: SAHADEV HAJONG @ SAHDEV HAJONG S/O BHARAT HAJONG R/O SHALBARI MARKULA P.S. BAGWAN DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM 4: FULCHAN ALI S/O AJIFUR RAHMAN R/O KARISALA BATABARI P.S. BAGWAN DIST. GOALPARA ASSA VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶9

Page No.# 2/3

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S MUNIR

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶12

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

¶13

ORDER

¶14

08.11.2023

¶15

Heard Mr. S. Munir, learned counsel for the accused and also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent.

¶16

2. This application, under section 439 Cr.P.C. is preferred by four accused, namely, Ruhul Amin, Anser Ali, Sahadev Hajong @ Sahdev Hajong and Fulchan Ali, who have been languishing in jail hazot, in connection with Geetanagar P.S. Case No.218/2023, under Section 379 IPC, for grant of bail.

¶17

3. It is to be noted here that the above noted case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by one Sudarshan Das and Mahananda Moran on 24.09.2023. The essence of allegation made in the aforesaid FIR is that on the intervening night of 24.09.2023, at about 3:00 a.m. some unknown miscreants entered into his house by breaking the lock of the gate and stolen away his Yamaha R-15 motorcycle, bearing Registration No.AS-01EX-7023 and also stolen away his neighbour's KTM DUKE 250 motorcycle, bearing Registration No.AS-23X-2952, which was registered in the name of one Haren Moran.

¶18

4. Mr. Munir, learned counsel for the accused, submits that the accused Ruhul Amin and Anser Ali @ Ansar Ali are languishing in jail hazot since 30.09.2023 and accused Sahadev Hajong @ Sahdev Hajong and Fulchan Ali are languishing in jail hazot since 01.10.2023. Mr. Munir further submits that the stolen bikes have already been recovered

¶19

Page No.# 3/3

¶20

and seized by police and in that view of the matter, their further custodial detention may not be required and therefore, Mr. Munir contended to allow this petition.

¶21

5. On the other hand, Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary before this Court and submits that the stolen bikes have already been recovered and material part of investigation, so far it relates to the accused persons are concerned, has already been completed.

¶22

6. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates for both the sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the case diary with the assistance of Mr. Sarma, learned Additional P.P.

¶23

7. It appears that the accused persons are languishing in jail hazot since 30.09.2023, and 01.10.2023, respectively. Further, it appears that the material part of investigation, so far it relates to the present accused persons are concerned, has already completed and the stolen bikes have also been recovered and seized by police and as such, their further custodial detention may not be required in the interest of investigation and therefore, this Court is inclined to allow this petition.

¶24

8. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of ` 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) each, with one surety of like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M), the accused persons be enlarged on bail.

¶25

9. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. The case diary be returned.

¶26

Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE

¶27

Comparing Assistant

Ruhul Amin and 3 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ruhul Amin and 3 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

Mahen Sarmah Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Sri Amitabh Saikia Vs Sri Debojit Gogoi @ Debajit Gogoi

Kishore Bhattyacherjee and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Jyoti Prakash Jaiswal Vs the State of Assam

Jyoti Prakash Jaiswal Vs the State of Assam

Tapan Biswas Vs the State of Assam and Anr.