Dismissed

Sri Sanjeev Bhalotia and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC8 May 2024I.A.(Crl.)/393/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought modification of a condition in their interim anticipatory bail barring them from leaving Gohpur jurisdiction, claiming it prevented appearing before the investigating officer. The Court found their apprehension unfounded since they had neither appeared nor sought permission, and dismissed the application with a direction to appear within ten days.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Sanjeev Bhalotia and Anr. Vs the State of Assam — Anticipatory Bail | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010083442024

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/393/2024

¶6

SRI SANJEEV BHALOTIA AND ANR

¶7

SON OF LATE JOGMOHAN BHALOTIA, RESIDENT OF BF 164 SALT LAKE SECTOR 1 P.S. BIDHANNAGAR NORTH DIST NORTH 24 PARAGANAS KOLKATA WEST BENGAL

¶8

2: KESHAV BHALOTIA

¶9

SON OF SANJEEV BHALOTIA

¶10

RESIDENT OF -BF 164 SALT LAKE SECTOR 1 PS BIDHANNAGAR NORTH DIST NORTH 24 PARAGANAS KOLKATA WEST BENGA

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP ASSAM

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : PRADIP GOGOI

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER

¶16

09.05.2024

¶17

Heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Addl. P.P. for the State respondent.

¶18

2. This interlocutory application is preferred by the applicants namely, Sri Sanjeev Bhalotia and Sri Keshav Bhalotia for alteration/modification of the

¶19

Page No.# 2/2

¶20

condition No. 3, imposed in the order dated 05.03.2024, passed in AB No. 557/2024.

¶21

3. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the applicants submits that vide order dated 05.03.2024, this Court has granted interim pre-arrest bail to the applicants, by imposing 3 conditions and the last condition was that the applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned S.D.J.M. (M), Gohpur. Mr. Das further submits that as the aforesaid condition was imposed upon the applicant, the applicant could not appear before the I.O., apprehending that in the event of reaching Gohpur they may not be allowed to leave the jurisdiction of learned S.D.J.M. (M), Gohpur and therefore, it is contended to modify the condition No. 3 as mentioned above.

¶22

4. Admittedly, the applicants have not appeared before the I.O. and also they have not filed any application before the learned S.D.J.M. (M), Gohpur for allowing them to leave the jurisdiction of learned S.D.J.M. (M), Gohpur and as such, the apprehension is found to be unfounded as well as unreasonable.

¶23

5. Under the aforementioned facts and circumstances, this Court finds no merit in this interlocutory application and accordingly, the same stands dismissed . And the applicants are directed to appear before the arresting authority within a period of 10 (ten) days from today.

¶24

JUDGE

¶25

Comparing Assistant

Sri Sanjeev Bhalotia and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri Sanjeev Bhalotia and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Basit Vs the State of Assam

Firoj Ali Vs the State of Assam

Sultan Uddin Vs the State of Assam

Ashik Faraji Vs the State of Assam

Md. Kamrul Islam Vs the State of Assam

Ramez Uddin Vs the State of Assam