Disposed

Minakshi Saikia v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC9 Sept 2024AB/1339/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC arising from a cheating and criminal breach of trust FIR. The petitioner had cooperated with investigation and interim protection was already granted. The court made the interim protection absolute with conditions against tampering and disposed of the application.

What did the court decide?

Interim pre-arrest protection made absolute on conditions; bail application disposed of.

Minakshi Saikia Vs the State of Assam — Cheating and Forgery | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010102542024

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB/1339/2024

¶5

MINAKSHI SAIKIA

¶6

W/O RAJU NATH, R/O KHOGA (VILLAGE), P.O.-KHOGA, P.S.-PANIGAON, DIST- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN-787052

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G PHUKAN,

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶11

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶12

ORDER

¶13

10.09.2024

¶14

Heard Mr. G. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶15

By this application under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner, namely Minakshi Saikia, has approached this Court seeking the benefit of

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

pre-arrest bail, apprehending her arrest, in connection with Dhakuakhana PS Case No. 19/2024 under Section 420/406 of IPC corresponding to GR Case No. 23/2024.

¶18

This Court vide order dated 27.05.2024 has granted interim protection to the petitioner while, calling for case diary.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after grant of interim protection by this Court under its order dated 27.05.2024, the petitioner appeared before the I.O and got her statement recorded.

¶20

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state has vehemently objected to the prayer of bail. It is contended that sufficient incriminating materials are there against the petitioner.

¶21

The case diary is received. Perused the same.

¶22

Considered the material available on record, it is seen that the petitioner has fully cooperated with the investigation. After perusal of the material so far collected by the investigating officer, this Court is of the view that the custodial detention of the petitioner may not be necessary in this case inasmuch as the investigation has substantially been progressed.

¶23

Therefore, in the totality of the matter, the interim protection granted under order dated 27.05.2024 is made absolute with the following terms and condition.

¶24

(1) The petitioner shall not hamper with the investigation, or tamper with the evidence of the case,

¶25

(2) The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶26

Accordingly, this bail application stands disposed of.

¶27

Page No.# 3/3

¶28

Return back the case dairy.

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Comparing Assistant

Minakshi Saikia v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minakshi Saikia 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

Zeetendra Salai Vs Megha Nidhi Dahal

Dwijendra Mohan Goswami and 9 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 9 Ors.

Tarala Das Vs Gail (India) Limited and 4 Ors.

Somnath Mitra Vs Arabinda Mitra

Neuton Das and 6 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Johiran Bibi and Anr. Vs the State of Assam