High Court · 2012
Case Details
AB 3935/2013 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE P.K. SAIKIA Heard Mr. D. Das, learned counsel, appearing for the accused petitioner, Syed Ma nowar Hussain in A.B No. 3850/2013.
Legal Reasoning
Also heard Mr. J. Roy, learned counsel, appearing for the accused -petitioners, Sri Niranjan Sharma and Sri Parnjit Talukdar in AB No. 3935/2013 & AB No. 3936/2013 respectively. Heard Mr. B. Sinha, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State in these proceedings. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in A.B No. 3850/2013 h as submitted that the petitioner, Syed Manowar Hussain was working as a Director Asset in Rangdhali Real Estate Consultants and Developer Limited (in short, Dev eloper Ltd.). After working for sometime, Syed Manowar Hussain resigned from the said Company on 5.4.2010. His resignation was duly accepted and he was released from the Company. Long after his release from the Company aforesaid, the Officer-In-Charge, BI EO, filed an FIR on 22.6.2011 alleging violation of various provisions of Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 4/5/6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation S cheme (Banning) Act, 1978 (in short, the Act 1978) by the officers of aforesaid Company including Mr. Hussain, vide B.I.(E.O.) PS Case No. 26/2011. The petition er herein approached this Court seeking pre-arrest bail in the event of his arre st in connection with B.I.(E.O) PS Case No. 26/2011. This Court by its order dated 13.6.12 passed in AB No. 2255/12 gave the accused- petitioner the benefit of pre-arrest bail holding that (cid:28)Apparently there is no i ngredient of Section 420 IPC. In so far Sections 4/5/6 of the Prize Chits and M oney Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 are concerned there is also no such express ingredients in the FIR (cid:29) Thereafter, another FIR has been filed by the O.C., Chandmari Police Station on 25.6.2013 alleging similar allegations. On the receipt of such an FIR, Chandmari PS Case No. 193/2013 under Sections 120(B)/420/406 IPC has been registered. It has been stated that contents of the FIR in B.I.(E.O.) PS Case No. 26/2011 and t hat of Chandmari PS Case No. 193/2013 are basically same and as such, on such fa ct, the petitioner Mr. Hussain is entitled to pre-arrest bail in the event of hi s arrest in connection with Chandmari PS Case No. 193/2013. In so far the accused Sri Parnjit Talukdar and Sri Niranjan Sharma are concerned , Mr. Roy has submitted that both the accused were the officers of Developers Lt d. But they had resigned from the aforementioned company on 6.9.11 and 1.9.11 re spectively. It is submitted that the petitioners are in no way involved in the o ffences dated 26.4.2013 which led to registration of Chandmari PS Case No. 193/2 013. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for these two petitioners that they were similarly situated with the petitioner in AB No. 2255/2012 who was gr anted pre-arrest bail in connection with B.I.(E.O.) PS Case No. 26/2011 and, the refore, they should be given the benefit of pre-arrest bail in the event of thei r arrest in connection with Chandmari PS Case No. 193/2013. Before I proceed further, I find it necessary to have a look at the order of thi s Court passed in AB No. 2255/2012. For ready reference the orde r is reproduced below :- (cid:28)BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. UPADHYAY DATE OF ORDER : 13/06/2012 This is an application under Section 438 CrPC seeking pre-arrest bail on be half of the petitioner namely - Syed Manowar Hussain in connection with B.I.(E.O .) P.S. Case No. 26 of 2011 under Section 120(B)/420 IPC R/W Section 4/5/6 of th e Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. Heard Mr. F.H. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner and B.B. Gogoi, learne d P.P. The case dairy as called for in connection with the aforesaid case has been prod uced. I have gone through the same. One co-accused namely Sri Arohan Bhardwaj, who was arrested in the said case, was enlarged on bail vide order dated 3.4.2012 passe d in B.A. No. 479 of 2012. The aforesaid accused petitioner who is the Managing Director of the Company and he was enlarged on pre-arrest bail. The present accu sed/petitioner is also one of the Directors of the Company. On perusal of the case dairy, it is found that the statements of the accused pet itioner have been recorded by the I.O. Apparently there is no ingredients of Sec tion 420 IPC. In so far as Sections 4/5/6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulati on Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 are concerned, there is also no such ingredients i n the FIR. Situated thus, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, it is ordered that the accused petitioner with the afor esaid PS Case, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 1,00, 000/- (Rupees one lakh) only with two local sureties of the like amount to the s atisfaction of the arresting authority and as per conditions laid down under Sec tion 438(2) CrPC. Accused petitioner shall not leave Guwahati without prior inti mation to the I.O. and shall appear before the I.O. once in a fortnight for a pe riod of six months from today. (cid:29) In this connection, I have also heard Mr. S.B. Sinha, learned Addl. Public Pros ecutor appearing for the State who fairly conceded to the contention made by lea rned counsel for the petitioners in the proceedings aforementioned as far as gra nting them the benefit of pre-arrest bail is concerned. On the perusal of the aforesaid order together with the FIR dated 22.6.2011, FI R dated 26.4.2013 filed before the S.P., B.I.(E.O.), Assam and O.C., Chandmari P olice Station respectively as well as other materials found available in the CD, I am of the opinion that at the moment, the custodial interrogation of the accu
Decision
sed petitioners in connection with the aforementioned case are not required. In view of above, the earlier interim bail orders are hereby made absolute on th e same terms and conditions rendered therein. The bail applications stand disposed of. This proceeding, is, thus stands disposed of. Return the CDs.