THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM
Case at a glance
- Bench
- KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
Outcome
Disposed of
With the above observation, this bail application is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 161, 439
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 306
- Constitution of India art. 21
Judgment
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B K GOGOI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
02.02.2024 ORDER Heard Mr. D. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parashar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Assam. This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Page No.# 2/3 1973 for granting of regular bail to the accused / petitioner, namely, Shri Rajib Thapa @ Rahul Thapa, who was arrested on 04.01.2024 in connection with Sootea P.S. Case No. 136/2023 registered under Section 306/34 of the IPC. The allegations made in the FIR dated 16.12.2023 is that the accused / petitioner and another co-accused subjected his sister (deceased) to mental torture as a result of which she committed suicide on 15.12.2023 at about 9.30 am. Mr. D. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused / petitioner was the former boyfriend of the deceased and has nothing to do with the suicide committed by the deceased. Mr.
K.K. Parashar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits on the basis of the materials available on the Case Diary that the statement of the witnesses have been recorded under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. as well as under 164 Cr.P.C. The P.M. Report and Data Analysis Report has also been obtained. He further submits that the statement of both the accused have also been taken. I have heard the submissions made at the bar and have perused the materials available on record. It appears that the investigation has substantially progressed and the accused / petitioner has cooperated with the investigation. It further appears from statement of the friend of the deceased that the deceased had called her few days before committing suicide and have stated that the accused / petitioner has told her that the petitioner / accused has told to her present boyfriend, i.e., Someswar Kouranya @ Someshwar Kouranya Sarma @ Sumesh Sarma that they had sexual relation for which the accused, i.e., Someswar Kouranya has scolded her.
Operative part
It further appears from the statement of the accused / petitioner that since his ex-girlfriend was seeing the accused Someswar Kouranya presently, out of jealousy he has falsely told him about having sexual relationship with her. It appears that the petitioner / accused has been languishing in jail since last 29 Page No.# 3/3 days. Considering the nature of allegations vis-a-vis Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court is of the opinion that there is no justification in keeping the petitioner under further detention. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner namely, Rajib Thapa @ Rahul Thapa is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Biswanath subject to following conditions.
(i) That the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation.
(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the any Police Officer. With the above observation, this bail application is disposed of. Return the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the above observation, this bail application is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 161, 439; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 306; Constitution of India — art. 21.
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.