Allowed

Ajay Das @ Paniram v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC1 Sept 2024AB/2302/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court considered a pre-arrest bail application under Sections 303(2) and 317(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, relating to cheating in connection with a stolen buffalo. The petitioner, though implicatable, assisted police in recovery. The court granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be released on pre-arrest bail of Rs. 30,000 with a surety of like amount, conditioned to appear before IO within 7 days, cooperate with investigation, and not tamper with evidence.

Ajay Das @ Paniram Vs the State of Assam — Anticipatory Bail | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010174722024

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB/2302/2024

¶5

AJAY DAS @ PANIRAM

¶6

S/O ANIL DAS, R/O VILL- NAGAYA PAR GAON, P.O.-CHINAKAN CHARIALI, P.S.-BOKAKHAT, DIST- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N K KALITA,

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶11

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Date : 02.09.2024

¶14

Heard Mr. N.K. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State respondent.

¶15

The present application has been so instituted by the petitioner, namely Sri Ajay Das @ Paniram, praying for pre-arrest bail in connection with Jorhat P.S. Case No.321/2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No.512/2024 under Sections 303(2)/317(4) BNS, 2023.

¶16

Page No.# 2/2

¶17

I have perused the FIR as well as the forwarding report dated 13.08.2024 in respect of the other three co-accused.

¶18

From perusal of the said forwarding report, it is brought to light that the petitioner herein was the purchaser of the stolen buffalo and he had assisted the police in recovery of the same. However, the petitioner is also liable for the offence as contained in the FIR in question.

¶19

However, considering the materials available on record and also the contention of the petitioner in the present application, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on prearrest bail.

¶20

Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest of arrest of the petitioner named above in connection with the aforementioned case, he shall be released on pre-arrest bail of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with a suitable surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority subject to the following conditions:-

¶21

(i) that the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer of the case within a period of 7 (seven) days from today;

¶22

(ii) that the petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation of the case and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required in connection with the investigation of the aforesaid P.S. Case; and

¶23

(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 the Investigating Officer or tamper with the evidence of the case.

¶24

With the above observation, the Anticipatory Bail application stands disposed of.

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

Comparing Assistant

Ajay Das @ Paniram v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Das @ Paniram 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

Sh. Lalnuntluanga Vs State of Mizoram and 4 Ors.

Smt. Lalvuani Vs State of Mizoram represented by the Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram and 5 Ors.

Sh. Vanlalthuama Vs The State of Mizoram R/b the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram and 5 Ors.

Economic Development Organisation Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Sajidur Rahman Vs the State of Assam

Raja Sonowal @ Raja Saikia Vs the State of Assam