Two applicants sought to make interim pre-arrest bail absolute. The High Court, finding they cooperated with the investigation and custodial interrogation unwarranted, made the interim order absolute.
The interim pre-arrest bail order dated 22.03.2024 was made absolute on the same terms and conditions.
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
GAHC010052002024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/648/2024
GOLAK KALITA AND ANR S/O LATE THANESHWAR KALITA
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GODEBARI, PO AND PS PALASHBARI, DIST KAMRUP ASSAM 781128
2: PRANITA KALITA W/O GOLAK KALITA
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GODEBARI PO AND PS PALASHBARI DIST KAMRUP ASSAM 78112
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MAHMUD
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
ORDER
26.04.2024
Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the applicants and also heard Ms. N.
Page No.# 2/3
Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent.
2. Apprehending arrest in connection with Palashbari P.S. Case No.441/2023 under Section 120B/420/466/468/471/34 IPC, this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is preferred by two applicants, namely, Golak Kalita and Pranita Kalita, for grant of prearrest bail.
3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by one Saju Tk, on 25.11.2023. The allegation made in the FIR relates to manufacturing of forged sale deed by the present applicants in respect of selling of a plot of land to the informant of the said case.
4. Mr. Mahmud, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants were granted the privilege of interim pre-arrest bail vide order dated 22.03.2024 and pursuant to the said order, they have appeared before the I.O. and their statements have also been recorded and therefore, Mr. Mahmud contended that the interim order dated 22.03.2024, may be made absolute, in the same terms and conditions.
5. On the other hand, Ms. N. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, has produced the case diary before this Court and submits that the applicants have appeared before the I.O. and their statements have already been recorded and they have been cooperating with the investigating agency. However, Ms. Das submits that the I.O. has collected some incriminating materials against the applicants and therefore, Ms. Das has opposed the petition.
6. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the case diary with the assistance of Ms. Das, learned Additional P.P.
7. The case diary indicates that the I.O. has collected some incriminating materials against the present applicants. But it also appears that the applicants have already been granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail vide order dated 22.03.2024 and thereafter, they have appeared before the I.O. and they have been cooperating with the investigating
Page No.# 3/3
agency. In view of above and also in view of the progress of investigation, custodial interrogation of the applicants seems to be not warranted here in this case and therefore, this Court is inclined to make the interim order dated 22.03.2024, absolute, in the same terms and conditions. Case diary be returned.
8. In terms of above, this anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.
Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an interim pre-arrest bail order made for applicants involved in forgery charges should be made absolute.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Golak Kalita
Pranita Kalita
The State of Assam
Robin Phukan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
