THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM & Anr. v. THE STATE OF ASSAM
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 22 Feb 2023
- Bench
- KALYAN RAI SURANA
Outcome
Bail refused
for bail is rejected
Provisions considered
Judgment
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./494/2023 FAJALUR RAHAMAN AND ANR S/O MAJI SHEIKH @ R/O VILL- GOROIMARI P.S. MANIKPUR DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM 2: ZAKIR HUSSAIN S/O MOMEJ ALI R/O VILL- POPRAGAON P.S. BONGAIGAON DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR T H HAZARIKA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA Date : 22.02.2023 ORDER Page No.# 2/2 Heard Mr. T.H. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned APP for the State. The petitioners, Fajalur Rahman and Zakir Hussain, who were arrested on
03.01.2023 in connection with Raha P.S. Case No. 1/2023 under Sections 379 IPC read with section 23 of the Petroleum Act, 1934 and Sections 15(2) & 15(4) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 as amended by Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Amendment Act, 2011 and Sections 3(2)(b) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 are seeking regular bail under Section 439 CrPC. The learned Addl. P.P. has produced the case diary and has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that the petitioners, who are the driver and handyman, are involved in theft of crude oil from OIL pipeline by puncturing the said oil pipeline. On a perusal of the case diary, it is seen that by damaging crude oil pipeline, which is a public property, pilferage of large scale of crude oil was committed. Therefore, it is not acceptable that the petitioners were not aware that they were transporting stolen crude oil. Accordingly, the Court does not find this to be a fit case for releasing the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected. 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: for bail is rejected
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 379; Petroleum Act, 1934 — s. 23; Land Act, 1962; Land Amendment Act, 2011; Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 — s. 3(2)(b); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gauhati High Court, on 22 Feb 2023. The bench was KALYAN RAI SURANA.
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.