Allowed

Shahinur Islam v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC17 Jul 2024AB/1463/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court granted anticipatory bail to Shahinur Islam, apprehending arrest under multiple IPC sections for assault. The court held custodial interrogation unjustified given substantial investigation progress and five co-accused already on bail, granting release on Rs. 30,000 bond.

What did the court decide?

Release on pre-arrest bail on furnishing Rs. 30,000 bail bond with one surety, subject to conditions to appear within 10 days, not tamper investigation, and not induce witnesses.

Shahinur Islam Vs the State of Assam — Bail and Remand | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010111592024

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB/1463/2024

¶5

SHAHINUR ISLAM

¶6

S/O SHAHJAMAL SK, VILL- BORO CHEDAMARI, P.S.-SOUTH SALMARA, DIST-SOUTH SALMARA-MANKACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-783127

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. L R MAZUMDER

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶11

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Date : 18.07.2024

¶14

Heard Mr. A. Z. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also Heard Mr. K. K. Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State respondent.

¶15

This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is filed for granting the privilege of prearrest bail to the petitioner, namely Shahinur Islam , apprehending arrest in connection with South Salmara P.S. Case No. 334/2023 registered u/s 147/342/325/326/307/379 of the IPC.

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

The allegation in the FIR is that the accused petitioner has assaulted the son of the informant.

¶18

Mr. A. Z. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused petitioner is totally innocent and no way connected with the alleged offence and there are no materials to implicate the accused petitioner with the offence alleged. He further submits that the informant has lodged a false case against the accused petitioner.

¶19

He further submits that the actual fact of the case is that on 19.11.2023 at about 11.30 after attending nature’s call, when the wife and daughter of the coaccused returned to their respective beds, then the son of the informant entered into the bedroom of the daughter/niece of the accused/petitioner and gagged her mouth with cloth and with the threat to kill her with knife committed rape upon her. The daughter/niece of the co-accused somehow freed herself and managed to raise alarm and after hearing her hue and cry, the co-accused entered her bedroom and caught the son of the informant red-handed. Thereupon the informant was called, and everything was explained to him, whereupon the informant admitted the fault of his son and assured not to repeat such act in future and took away his son in a physically fit and fine condition in presence of some village elderly people and some of them are the member of the Village Defense Party (VDP). The informant in connection to the said incident on 20.11.2023 at 1.30 Am executed an agreement in the presence of some witnesses which transpire the actual fact of the case and the illegal act done by his son.

¶20

Mr. K. K. Das, learned Addl. P.P., on the other hand, strongly opposed the prayer of the pre-arrest bail and submits on the basis of the case diary that there are implicating materials available against the petitioner.

¶21

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have also perused the materials available on record including the case diary.

¶22

Page No.# 3/3

¶23

From the case diary, it appears that the investigation has substantially progressed. It further appears that the statement of the witnesses had already been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it further appears that out of seven co-accused, five of the co-accused has already been enlarged on bail by this Court.

¶24

Considering the totality of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be justified for the ongoing investigation.

¶25

Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the petitioner, named above, shall be released on pre-arrest bail, in connection with the above noted case on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject, of course, to the following conditions:

¶26

(i) That the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within

¶27

10 days, failing which on and from the 11^th day, this anticipatory order shall have no force;

¶28

(ii) That the petitioner shall not hamper or tamper with the investigation in any manner; and

¶29

(iii) That 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶30

Return the case diary.

¶31

This disposes off the anticipatory bail application.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Shahinur Islam v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahinur Islam 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

Smti Kabita Borkakati Vs the Union of India and 10 Ors.

Shirajul Islam and 26 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Bimala Nath Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Md. Safiqur Rahman Barbhuiya Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Md. Safiqur Rahman Barbhuyan Vs the State of Assam

Paresh Kumar Chutia @ Poresh Kumar Chutia @ Poresh Chutia Vs the Insurance Ombudsman and Anr.