Dismissed

Md. Bahar Uddin v. the State of Tripura

Tripura HC11 Oct 2017AB/92/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected a pre-arrest bail petition where the petitioner was implicated in a murder charge. The bench held that investigation reports confirmed the petitioner's identity as the accused, disregarding a minor discrepancy in the father's name. Granting bail could hamper investigation, so it was rejected.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail petition rejected; earlier interim order vacated.

Md. Bahar Uddin Vs the State of Tripura — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

Noting by Officer o Advocate	r Serial No.	Date	Office notes, reports, orders or proceedings With signature
	Saikat		A.B. 92 of 2017 B E F O R E THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.TALAPATRA 11.10.2017 Heard Mr. SC Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. RC Debnath, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent. In terms of the order dated 25.09.2017, the investigating officer has submitted a report to the learned PP clearly stating that Md. Bahar Uddin, son of late Mahibul Islam resident of North Padmabil, P.S. Panisagar, North Tripura is the same person who is actually involved in the instant case and till date he is absconding to avoid the police arrest and he is the same person whose name is mentioned as Md. Bahar Uddin, Upa-Pradhan in every statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C recorded by him during his investigation. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel has submitted that in the forwarding report the name of the father of Md. Bahar Uddin has been shown as Mahibur Islam not as Mahibul Islam and as such these are two different persons. This court is unable to accept that contention in view of the report submitted by the investigating officer of Panisager PS case No.2017/PNS/ 007 under Sections 148/149/325/326 of the IPC with added sections 307/302 of the IPC. This court had occasion to go through the case diary where there are incriminating materials against the petitioner. Moreover the investigation is at the very early stage, as such this court is of the view that the pre-arrest bail in favour of the petitioner should not be granted. If granted, it may hamper the process of investigation. Accordingly, this petition stands rejected. The report submitted to the Public Prosecutor is made part of this record. Interim order, as passed earlier stands vacated. JUDGE

Md. Bahar Uddin v. the State of Tripura

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Bahar Uddin v. the State of Tripura

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

Raju Das Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sanjoy Dey Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ranabir Chowhan Vs Union of India and Ors.

Saddam Hossain Vs the State of Tripura

Mohan Lal Debnath Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Shyamal Das Vs the State of Tripura