Disposed

Md. Babul Ali and 2 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC1 May 2024Bail Appln./1247/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Section 439 CrPC for three accused arrested for dacoity under Section 395 IPC in a truck hijacking case. Considering 74 days of detention, 14 days police remand and progress of investigation, the court held further custodial interrogation unnecessary and granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners enlarged on bail on bond of Rs. 20,000 each with one surety, subject to conditions of cooperation with investigation and jurisdictional restrictions.

Md. Babul Ali and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam — Bail and Remand | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010085232024

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Bail Appln./1247/2024

¶5

MD. BABUL ALI AND 2 ORS. S/O LATE AJID ALI VILL- AGGUMI MAJGUMI P.S. CHAYGAON DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM

¶6

2: MD. BADAR UDDIN S/O LATE SATTER ALI VILL- AHATA P.S. MUKALMUA DIST. NALBARI ASSAM

¶7

3: MD. JURAN ALI S/O LATE BAHEJ ALI VILL- TATABORI P.S. HAJO DIST. KAMRUP ASSA VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MD K RAHMAN

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶11

Page No.# 2/4

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 02.05.2024

¶15

Heard Mr. K. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

¶16

This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with Dharamtul P.S. Case No. 08/2024, under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 168/2024.

¶17

As the Case Diary is already available in the Court, same has been perused and heard both sides.

¶18

It is submitted by Mr. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the present accused/petitioners are innocent and they are not involved in the alleged offence. However, they are behind the bar for last 74 days including 14 days of police remand. Thus, the I.O. got sufficient opportunity to interrogate all the present accused/petitioners keeping them in custody. However, they are still ready and willing to co-operate the I.O. in the further investigation of the case if they are granted with the privilege of bail.

¶19

In this context, Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present

¶20

Page No.# 3/4

¶21

accused/petitioners and they are directly involved in the hijacking of the truck. However, he submitted that there is no note from the I.O. that the ChargeSheet will be filed within short period or within the statutory period. Further, he submitted that there are substantial progress in the investigation of this case, though huge quantity of Areca Nuts are yet to be recovered.

¶22

After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, it is seen that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present accused/petitioners. However, it cannot be denied that all the accused/petitioners were in police custody for 14 (fourteen) days and they are behind the bar for a considerable period. From the Case Diary, it is also seen that there are sufficient progress in the investigation of this case, though some quantity of theft Areca Nuts are yet to be recovered. However, considering the length of detention already undergone by the accused/petitioners, I am of the view that the I.O. has got ample opportunity to interrogate the accused/petitioners keeping them in custody and accordingly, I find that further custodial interrogation of the accused/ petitioners is not necessary here in this case for the interest of investigation.

¶23

Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/(Rupees twenty thousand) only each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon, the accused/petitioners, namely, (i) Md. Babul Ali, (ii) Md. Badar Uddin & (iii) Md. Juran Ali, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:

¶24

Page No.# 4/4

¶25

(i) that the petitioners shall fully co-operate with the investigation of the case and shall also make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required;

¶26

(ii) that the petitioners 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 any police officer; and

¶27

(iii) that the petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon, without prior permission.

¶28

In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of.

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Comparing Assistant

Md. Babul Ali and 2 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Babul Ali and 2 Ors. 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

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sharmila Turi and 4 Ors.

Gunada Bhuyan and Anr. Vs Heramba Saikia and 3 Ors.

Punit Agarwala Vs Bhanuja Modi

Md. Jiarul Hoque @ Jiaa Vs the State of Assam

Amar Baruah Vs Dipak Kumar Deka and Anr.

Islam Nawaj Ahmed @ Islam Nawaj Uddin Ahmed and 2 Ors. Vs Afifa Ahmed and 4 Ors.