Application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. The court found sufficient incriminating materials in the case diary and noted the investigation was ongoing with one stolen item unrecovered.
Application for pre-arrest bail is dismissed; case diary is to be returned.
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.# 1/3
GAHC010033162024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/421/2024
FIROJ ALI S/O NUR MAHAMMAD ALI R/O - KHANDAKARPARA P.O - BHELLA DIST - BARPETA ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP ASSAM
-----------Advocate for : MR. R MAZUMDAR Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER
08.05.2024
Heard Mr. H. Bezbarua, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. B.B.
Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.
2. Apprehending arrest in connection with Howly P.S. Case No. 08/2024 , under Sections 380/411/34 of the IPC, this application under Section
Page No.# 2/3
438 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicant, namely, Firuj Ali , for grant of pre-arrest bail.
3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by one Sadek Ahmed on 03.02.2024. The essence of allegation made in the FIR dated 03.02.2024, is that on that day, at about 3:30 a.m., when an employee of Airtel Company, namely, Arun Deka, informed him that two numbers of RRU machine have been stolen from Indus Tower of Dalgaon under Howly P.S., he came to the place of occurrence and found one vehicle, bearing Registration No. AS01JC8516, being parked near the place of occurrence and also found one person, namely, Manik Ali, and on being searched, he found one RRU machine in the said vehicle and when asked, Manik Ali stated that the said RRU machine was stolen from Indus Tower, along with Babul Ali, Firoj Ali and Dangar.
4. Mr. Bezbarua, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and no way involved with the offence alleged in the FIR and that he is ready to cooperate with the investigating agency and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition.
5. On the other hand, by producing the Case Diary before this Court, Mr. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the I.O. has collected some incriminating materials against the applicant and that the investigation is still going on and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition.
6. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the Case Diary produced before this Court with the
Page No.# 3/3
assistance of learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
7. The case diary indicates that the I.O. has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the applicant. Further, it appears that the investigation is still going on and one of the RRU is yet to be recovered.
8. In view of above and also in view of the materials, so far collected in the case diary, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the privilege of pre-arrest bail can be extended to the applicant and therefore, the same stands dismissed.
9. The case diary be returned.
Comparing Assistant
JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is maintainable given the presence of incriminating materials in the case diary.
Whether the ongoing investigation and unrecoverd evidence warrant denial of pre-arrest bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Firoj Ali
State of Assam
Robin Phukan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
