The High Court rejected an application under Section 438 CrPC seeking pre-arrest bail for the accused, holding that custodial interrogation could not be dispensed with in the facts of the case.
Bail application rejected on grounds that custodial interrogation is required.
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.
A.B. No.86 of 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. T. VAIPHEI Present: For the petitioner : Mr. P. Rathor, Advocate. Mr. NG. Nagi, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. R.C. Debnath, Addl. P.P. 07.09.2017.
Heard Mr. P. Rathor, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.C. Debnath, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
This is an application under Section 438 CrPC for granting pre-arrest bail to the accused petitioner, namely, Bachchu Miah, who has been implicated in connection with Amtali P.S. Case No.2017/AMT/030 U/s 304B/34 IPC.
With the assistance of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, I have carefully gone through the Case Diary and I am not satisfied that this is a case where custodial interrogation of the accused petitioner can be dispensed with.
Resultantly, the bail application is rejected.
CHIEF JUSTICE
Dipesh
A.B. No.86 of 2017
Page 1 of 1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted to the accused implicated in the case.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bachchu Miah
State
T. Vaiphei
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
