THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM
Case at a glance
- Bench
- AJIT BORTHAKUR
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 161, 438
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 120(B), 413, 420
- Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 s. 4
Judgment
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR
06.06.2023 ORDER Heard Mr. S. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State respondent. This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is filed for granting the privilege of pre- arrest bail to the petitioners, namely (i) Abdur Rahman Mollah (ii) Bablu Miah (iii) Yusuf Ali and (iv) Taher Ali, apprehending their arrest in connection with Gauripur P.S. Case No. 447/2022 corresponding to G.R. No. 1973/2022 registered u/s 120(B)/420/413/34 of the IPC read with Section 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Case diary, as called for, is placed before the Court. It may be mentioned that by order, dated 21.02.2023, this Court granted the privilege of interim pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, submits that the case diary shows that the petitioners appeared before the investigating officer and got their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as per the interim pre arrest bail granted earlier. There is no adverse report against the petitioners from the I.O. Therefore, the interim pre-arrest bail granted vide order, dated 21.02.2023 is hereby made absolute, subject to the following conditions- (i) That the petitioners shall co-operate in investigation as and when Page No.# 3/3 required; and (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. Return the case diary. This disposes off the anticipatory bail application. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.