THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
With the above observation and direction, the anticipatory bail application stands disposed of
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 313, 376, 417, 506, 511
Judgment
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A BARUAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA Date : 05.04.2024 ORDER Heard Mr. A. Baura, learned counsel for the petitioner. also heard Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner, namely Champal Doley, who is apprehending arrest in connection with Gogamukh P.S. Case No.13/2024 under Sections Page No.# 2/3 376/313/511/506/417 IPC. Case diary is received. Perused the same. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR has been lodged with some false and concocted allegation against him. It is a fact that the accused/petitioner and the informant had love affairs and they were in physical relationship for the last two/three years.
But when the accused/petitioner came to know that she is a married woman having husband and ten year old boy, he started avoiding her for which she lodged the FIR with some false allegation. However, he is ready and willing to cooperate with the I/O in further investigation of the case if he is granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. In this connection, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that as per the materials available in the case diary also it is seen that there was love relationship between the informant and the accused/petitioner and they were in physical relationship for the last two three years. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and also considering the material available in the case diary and the nature of offence alleged against the present accused/petitioner, I find that custodial interrogation may not be necessary in this case and hence I find it a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
Operative part
Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the accused petitioner named above in connection with Gogamukh P.S. Case No.13/2024 under Sections 376/313/511/506/417 IPC, he shall be enlarged on pre-arrest bail on their executing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject to the following conditions: i.that the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer of the case within a period of 10 (ten) days from today; ii.that the petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation of the case and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required in connection with the investigation of the aforesaid P.S. Case; and iii.that the petitioner 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. With the above observation and direction, the anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. Return the case diary. Page No.# 3/3 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 and direction, the anticipatory bail application stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 313, 376, 417, 506, 511.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gauhati High Court, on 05 Apr 2024. The bench was MITALI THAKURIA.
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.