Disposed

Nur Hussain Ali v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC1 Aug 2024AB/589/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vehicle owner sought anticipatory bail in an excise case after IMFL and beer were recovered from his truck; the Excise Standing Counsel noted no direct incriminating material against him. The court made the interim bail order absolute and disposed of the application.

What did the court decide?

Interim order dated 19.04.2024 made absolute granting anticipatory bail on same terms and conditions

Nur Hussain Ali Vs the State of Assam — Anticipatory Bail | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010046532024

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : AB/589/2024

¶6

NUR HUSSAIN ALI

¶7

S/O LT. NIJAM UDDIN, R/O VILL- BAMUNBARI, P.O.-BAMUNBARI, P.S.MUKALMUA, DIST- NALBARI, ASSAM-781312

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶10

REPRESENTED BY THE STANDING COUNSEL, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF ASSAM

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A GANGULY, MS. M ROY,MR T CHHETRI

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, EXCISE DEPTT.,

¶13

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Date : 02-08-2024

¶16

Heard Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner Nur Hussain Ali and Mr. N. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel for the Excise Department of Government of Assam.

¶17

The petitioner has filed this application under Section 438 of the Code of

¶18

Page No.# 2/3

¶19

Criminal Procedure, 1973 with prayer for pre-arrest bail as he is apprehending arrest in connection with C.R. (Excise) Case No. 14/2023 under Section 53(1) (a) of the Assam Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018.

¶20

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the registered owner of the truck bearing No.AS-25-FC-3278 from which IMFL and Beer bottles were recovered. The petitioner was not in the said truck. Though, he was the owner but he has no knowledge regarding transportation of liquor in his truck. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle was seized on the same day and subsequently, being the owner of the said vehicle zimma of the vehicle was granted by the concerned court. Considering the nature of accusation, pre-arrest bail may be granted to the petitioner.

¶21

The learned Standing Counsel for the Excise Department has also submitted that there are no direct incriminating materials in the Final Offence Report against the petitioner. He is indeed the owner of the aforementioned vehicle.

¶22

I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection. I have also scrutinized the Final Offence Report. The petitioner has appeared before the Inspector of Excise and his statement has been recorded. The petitioner has not violated any bail conditions. I have considered the submission that the petitioner is willing to cooperate with the investigation.

¶23

Considering all aspects and in view of my foregoing discussions, the interim order dated 19.04.2024 is hereby made absolute in the same terms and conditions.

¶24

In terms of the above observations, this Anticipatory Bail application

¶25

Page No.# 3/3

¶26

stands disposed of.

¶27

8. Send back the Final Offence Report.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Nur Hussain Ali v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nur Hussain Ali 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

Sanjoy Adhikary Vs State of Assam

Paresh Dey Vs State of Assam

Harish Kr Pareek Vs State of Assam

Hari Prasad Pandiya Vs the State of Assam

Hamed Ali Vs the State of Assam

Sandarjya Das Vs the State of Assam