Dismissed¶31

Sanjib Hrishi v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC10 Feb 2025AB/72/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sanjib Hrishi v. State of Assam; Gauhati High Court; Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia; AB/72/2025 and AB/70/2025; anticipatory bail; Section 482 BNSS 2023; Katigorah P.S. Case No. 110/2024; Katigorah P.S. Case No. 111/2024; post office; FIR by employee; FIR by customer; Rs.500 demand per new account; Rs.10,000 deposited versus Rs.3,000 credited; departmental proceeding; punishment imposed; applications dismissed; case diary to be returned; Karimganj, Assam.

What did the court decide?

The provision of the law contained in Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is not applicable in the present case. ¶31

Sanjib Hrishi Vs the State of Assam — Anticipatory Bail | Gauhati HC (2025)

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010003512025

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : AB/72/2025

¶6

SANJIB HRISHI

¶7

S/O PRABIN CHANDRA HRISHI, RESIDENT OF M.M.C ROAD, WARD NO. 7 DIST KARIMGANJ, ASSAM 788709

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : P J DAS, MR S DAS

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶12

Linked Case : AB/70/2025

¶13

SANJIB HRISHI S/O PRABIN CHANDRA HRISHI

¶14

RESIDENT OF M.M.C ROAD WARD NO. 7 DIST KARIMGANJ ASSAM 788709 VERSUS

¶15

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY PP ASSAM

¶16

-----------Advocate for : P J DAS Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶17

Page No.# 2/3

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 11.02.2025

¶21

This is a common order for these two items.

¶22

Heard Mr. S. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R. R. Kaushik, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent.

¶23

Both the applications have been filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in respect of Katigorah P.S. Case No. 110/2024 and Katigorah P.S. Case No. 111/2024.

¶24

One FIR was lodged by the employee of the post office, whereas the other FIR was lodged by the customer of the post office.

¶25

The employee of the post office has alleged that the present petitioner used to demand Rs.500/- whenever a new customer opens account in the post office.

¶26

One customer has made a similar allegation stating that she had opened with an account by depositing a sum of Rs.10,000/-, but it was later on discovered that the present petitioner had actually credited an amount of Rs.3,000/- only.

¶27

Mr. Kaushik has submitted that the post office authority has already initiated a departmental proceeding against the present petitioner.

¶28

I have considered the submissions made by both sides.

¶29

Page No.# 3/3

¶30

The post office authority has already imposed a punishment upon the present petitioner.

¶31

This Court is of the opinion that the provision of the law as contained in 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is not applicable in the present case, because the petitioner does not deserve to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Therefore, both the applications are dismissed and disposed of accordingly.

¶32

Case diary shall be returned.

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Comparing Assistant

Sanjib Hrishi v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjib Hrishi v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shahidul Khan Vs the State of Assam

Dr. Dipti Baruah Vs Arup Jyoti Das

Shivam Kumar Vs the State of Assam

Mahebul Islam and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Amir Ali @ Amiruddin Vs the State of Assam

Tayebur Rahman @ Tayeb Ali 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam