The Gauhati High Court disposed of an anticipatory bail application filed by Farid Ahmed in a murder case. The court allowed protection against arrest, directing the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation and imposing specific conditions on bail.
Anticipatory bail directed; petitioner to appear before IO within 10 days; bail granted subject to conditions.
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.# 1/4
GAHC010121172024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/1573/2024
FARID AHMED
S/O LATE KADER ALI, R/O VILL- SANDHALIE, P.O./P.S.-BELSOR, DISTNALBARI, ASSAM, PIN-781353
VERSUS
STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K DAS,
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
Date : 09-08-2024
1. Heard Mr. P.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. PP, Assam.
2. This application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Farid Ahmed who is apprehending
Page No.# 2/4
arrest in connection with Geetanagar P.S. Case No. 123/2024 under Sections 120(B)/302 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 31.05.2024 one Chandra Kanta Barman has lodged an FIR before the Officer In-charge of Geetanagar police station, inter alia, alleging that on 02.05.2024 a niece of the first informant informed him over telephone that the younger brother of the first informant, namely, Khagen Barman had eaten something and has passed away. Later on he was informed by the niece that the younger brother of the informant had committed suicide by hanging himself. It is also alleged in the FIR that the wife of the deceased Khagen Barman treated the deceased with cruelty and was having an extra-marital affairs with one Farid Ahmed (present petitioner). Therefore, the informant suspects the involvement of the said persons in the death of his brother and has alleged that the death of his brother is not a suicide but a pre-planned murder.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not a family member of the deceased and the allegations made against him in the FIR are not true and he is innocent and in no way involved in the offence alleged in the FIR.
5. On the other hand, learned Addl. PP has produced the Case Diary of Geetanagar P.S. Case No. 123/2024 and has submitted that the FSL report of the examination of viscera of deceased person shows no poison therein. It is also submitted that the post-mortem report shows that death of the deceased Khagen Barman is due to asphyxia due to hanging.
6. However, the learned Addl. PP has submitted that the witnesses whose statements are recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC have stated that there was an extra-
Page No.# 3/4
marital relationship between the present petitioner and the wife of the deceased and they suspected that they may be involved in the death of the deceased person.
7. Learned Addl. PP has also submitted that there is also material in form of a recorded conversion between the deceased and one of his brother Nabin Barman which indicates that the deceased reported his brother that he was subjected to mental cruelty due to the extra-marital relationship between his wife and the present petitioner.
8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and has perused the materials available on record. Considering the FSL report as well as post-mortem report of the deceased person in this case as well as from the materials available on record it appears that at this stage apart from mere suspicion, there is nothing on record which may implicate the present petitioner regarding his involvement in the offence alleged in the FIR.
9. In view of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the petitioner co-operates in the investigation, his custodial detention may not be necessary for fair completion of the investigation of the case.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner, namely, Farid Ahmed is hereby directed to appear before the Investigating Officer of Geetanagar P.S. Case No. 123/2024 within a period of 10 days from the date of order and co-operate with the investigation. If he does so within the stipulated period of time, in the event of his arrest in connection with Geetanagar P.S. Case No. 123/2024 he shall able to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety of like amount subject to satisfaction of the arresting authority with following conditions:-
Page No.# 4/4
against him before the Trial Court.
ii. That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Trial Court.
11. With the above observations, this anticipatory bail application is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an anticipatory bail application should be allowed in a murder pre-trial arrest apprehension scenario.
Whether the petitioner's custody is necessary for the fair completion of the investigation.
What conditions should be imposed on the grant of anticipatory bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Farid Ahmed
State of Assam
Mridul Kumar Kalita
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
