Disposed

Hari Prasad Pandiya v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC1 Aug 2024AB/1302/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC by a person fearing arrest in a theft and house-trespass case relating to a showroom. The court found no direct incriminating material against him, noted he was not a flight risk and had complied with interim bail conditions, and made the interim bail order absolute on the same terms.

What did the court decide?

Interim order dated 21.05.2024 made absolute on the same terms and conditions; anticipatory bail granted.

Hari Prasad Pandiya Vs the State of Assam — Quashing and FIR | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010099282024

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB/1302/2024

¶5

HARI PRASAD PANDIYA S/O SRI DURGA PRASAD PANDIYA R/O VILL- MAZGAON NABAPUR, P.O. NIKAMUL, P.S. TEZPUR, DIST. SONITPUR, ASSAM

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A GANGULY, MR. A DHANUKA,MR. A DUTTA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶9

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

¶10

ORDER

¶11

Date : 02-08-2024

¶12

Heard Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Hari Prasad Pandiya, who has filed this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with prayer for pre-arrest bail as he is apprehending arrest in connection with Tezpur Police Station Case No. 198/2024 (G.R. Case

¶13

Page No.# 2/3

¶14

No. 566/2024) under Sections 454/380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short).

¶15

The owner of the SR Granites and Tiles lodged an FIR that in the afternoon of 14.04.2024 he received an information relating to something suspicious in his showroom. When the informant asked his staff to check, he was informed that everything was normal but the CCTV camera was not working. Then, he along with his brother-in-law and cousin reached his showroom at about 4 PM and found that cash amounting to Rs.1,35,000/(Rupees One Lac Thirty Five Thousand) as well as some tiles design were missing. Next morning from 15.04.2024, the senior staff who was in-charge of over all activities in the showroom was found missing from the showroom till 16.04.2024.

¶16

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the present is the owner of another tiles showroom and he has also his GST registration certification, which is marked as Annexure-2 of the petition.

¶17

Heard Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent State. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that there are no direct incriminating materials in the Case Diary against the present petitioner.

¶18

The present petitioner was granted interim bail vide order dated 21.05.2024 passed by a Coordinate bench of this Court.

¶19

I have scrutinized the Case Diary. The statement of the present petitioner has been recorded. The petitioner has not violated any bail conditions. The petitioner is a local resident and he is not a flight risk. The petitioner is willing to abide by any stringent bail conditions if imposed upon him.

¶20

Page No.# 3/3

¶21

Considering all aspects and in view of my foregoing discussions, the interim order dated 21.05.2024 is hereby made absolute under the same terms and conditions.

¶22

In terms of the above observations, this Anticipatory Bail application stands disposed of.

¶23

Send back the Case Diary.

¶24

JUDGE

¶25

Comparing Assistant

Hari Prasad Pandiya v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Prasad Pandiya 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

Sanjoy Adhikary Vs State of Assam

Paresh Dey Vs State of Assam

Harish Kr Pareek Vs State of Assam

Nur Hussain Ali Vs the State of Assam

Hamed Ali Vs the State of Assam

Sandarjya Das Vs the State of Assam