THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The petition stands disposed of accordingly
Provisions considered
Judgment
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K N CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA Date : 17-03-2022 ORDER Heard Mr. KN Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. T Deuri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. BB Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent. This is an application, filed under Section 439 of the Cr.PC. seeking bail of the petitioner, namely, Smti. Papori Das @ Mehta, in connection with Anti Page No.# 2/3 Corruption Branch Police Station Case No. 04/2022 registered under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Perused the case diary produced before this Court. Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the accused-petitioner was arrested on 10.02.2022 and as such she has been in custody for 34 days, as on date, excluding the date of remand.
He has also referred to the statements made in the petition at paragraphs 7 and 8 to the effect that the petitioner has two minor children to be looked after by her and her father is also undergoing medical treatment in the Intensive Care Unit of Nemcare Hospital, Guwahati and her mother is also suffering from old age ailments. Therefore, Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has sought for bail on the above grounds including the length of detention. He has also, of course, submitted that for the purpose of investigation, further detention of the petitioner is not necessary. Mr. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while opposing the bail application has referred to the materials in the case diary, particularly the FSL report which shows that the voice sample of the petitioner taken by the Investigating Agency and compared with the voice in the mobile recording done by the informant tested positive.
Operative part
The allegation in the instant case is of demand of Rs. 1 lakh and payment of Rs. 50,000/- before the informant is appointed on compassionate ground. However, the demand did not materialize as the payment was not made. Whatever it may be, considering the submissions made by the respective learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that considering the stage of investigation as well as the length of detention and also taking into Page No.# 3/3 account the fact that the petitioner has two children to be looked after by her, she is granted bail. Accordingly, the accused-petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail in connection with the aforementioned case on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with a suitable surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Guwahati, Kamrup (Metro). The direction for bail is further subject to the conditions that the accused- petitioner: (a) shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of learned Special Judge, Guwahati, Kamrup (Metro), without prior written permission from him; (b) shall not hamper with the investigation, or tamper with the evidence of the case; and (c) 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. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. 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: The petition stands disposed of accordingly
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — s. 7(a).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gauhati High Court, on 17 Mar 2022. The bench was HITESH KUMAR SARMA.
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.