The Gauhati High Court made absolute an interim order granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner accused in a sexual assault case. The court found custodial interrogation unnecessary for investigation and the applicant kooperated with the inquiry.
Interim pre-arrest bail order dated 03.04.2024 made absolute; Case Diary sent back.
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
GAHC010047732024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/595/2024
RAMESH JAIN
S/O LATE CHOGA LAL JAIN, R/O HOUSE NO. 13, BY-LANE NO. 2, DEBADARU PATH, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, P.S.-DISPUR, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-781006
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K N CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
ORDER
Date : 09.05.2024
Heard Mr. T. Deuri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.
Page No.# 2/3
This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner, who is apprehending arrest in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 160/2024, under Sections 354(B)/ 376/506/294/354(A) of the Indian Penal Code.
It is submitted by Mr. T. Deuri, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the accused/petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case by the informant after withdrawing around Rs. 30,000/- from his account taking the advantage of being the employee under him. He further submitted that after obtaining the order of interim pre-arrest bail, he already appeared before the I.O. and co-operated in the investigation of the case. His statement is also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and he is still ready and willing to co-operate with the I.O. in the further investigation of the case if he is granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail.
In this context, Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted that in spite of repeated request, the informant refused to go for medical examination. In the present case, she brought the allegation of attempt to rape on her, but she brought the earlier allegation of committing rape on her by the accused/petitioner on 04.12.2023. Further he submitted that considering the materials available in the Case Diary, custodial interrogation may not be necessary for the interest of the investigation.
After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides and also considering the materials available in the Case Diary, viz-a-viz the conduct of the accused/ petitioner, I find that custodial interrogation of the
Page No.# 3/3
present accused/petitioner may not be necessary for the interest of investigation and hence, I find it a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner. Accordingly, the interim pre-arrest bail order, granted to the accused/petitioner vide order dated 03.04.2024, is hereby made absolute in the same terms and conditions.
In terms of above, this anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.
The Case Diary be sent back.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail should be made absolute in a non-grievous case where custodial interrogation is deemed unnecessary.
Whether the accused petitioner is a fit case for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ramesh Jain
The State of Assam
Mitali Thakuria
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
