Anticipatory bail application disposed of as not maintainable after the prosecution reported that no material in the case diary showed any allegation against or involvement of the petitioner, and there was no apprehension of arrest.
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
GAHC010017412024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/206/2024
MD. ABDUL RAHMAT
RESIDENT OF SATGAON PUKHURIPARA P.O. UDAYAN VIHAR GUWAHATI DIST KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM PH. 8638182982
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, GOVT. OF ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N ALAM
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
ORDER
Date : 22.02.2024
Heard Ms. B. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.
On 20.02.2024, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. D. Das, had
Page No.# 2/2
submitted that the last date of entry in the Case Diary was on 04.01.2024 and till then, there was no note from the I.O. as to whether the present accused/petitioner was searching in connection with this case and accordingly, the matter was directed to be listed today enabling the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to get instruction from the I.O. concerned as to whether the present petitioner is required in connection with the investigation of this case. However, it is submitted by Mr. Borthakur, that after taking instruction from the I.O., it is seen that the present accused/petitioner is not searched in this case and there is no any whisper against the present accused/petitioner nor there is any materials collected by the I.O. showing his involvement in alleged offence. Accordingly, it is submitted there could not be any apprehension of arrest of the accused/petitioner in connection with this case and as such, the present petition is not maintainable.
After hearing the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it is seen that till date, there is no apprehension of arrest of the present accused/petitioner in connection with the present case as from the note of the I.O. as well as from the materials in the Case Diary, there is no allegation brought against the present accused/petitioner till date. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to pass any order on pre-arrest bail and hence, the present anticipatory bail application stands disposed of being not maintainable.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
Md. Abdul Rahmat
The State of Assam rep. by the PP, Govt. of Assam
Mitali Thakuria
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
