The Gauhati High Court rejected a second anticipatory bail application filed by Anup Ojah. The Court found no change of circumstances warranting the grant of pre-arrest bail against his apprehension of arrest in a criminal case involving land grabbing offenses.
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
GAHC010086172024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/1125/2024
ANUP OJAH S/O LATE HASMOT OJAH R/O GANDHIBASTI MASJID ROAD, P.S. CHANDMARI, GUWAHATI, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A GANGULY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
ORDER
Date : 14.05.2024
Heard Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State respondent.
This second anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is filed for granting the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, namely, Sri Anup Ojah , who is apprehending arrest in connection with Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 3/2024 registered u/s 120(B)/420/468/471/409 of the IPC.
Page No.# 2/2
Pertinent to mention that by order dated 11.03.2024, this Court, after taking the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and going through the case diary produced before the Court, rejected the prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the elder brother of the petitioner, i.e., Jakir Ojah, is the mastermind in the alleged land grabbing offence and has executed the sale deed on 09.06.2006 in favour of the petitioner. He submits that the said fact was not brought to the notice of this Court in the first anticipatory bail application.
Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, submits that there has been no change of circumstances warranting grant of anticipatory bail in the second anticipatory bail application.
I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
This Court rejected the prayer of anticipatory bail earlier after evaluating and analysing the entire materials placed before the Court.
There appears no change of circumstances warranting grant of anticipatory bail as sought for in the instant second bail application.
Accordingly, the application stands rejected.
This anticipatory bail application accordingly stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail ought to be granted to the petitioner in view of no change of circumstances despite reiterated apprehension.
ANUP OJAH
THE STATE OF ASSAM
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
