✦ Gauhati High Court

Judgment · High Court

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Judgment

Judgment

AB 982/2013 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.VAIPHEI Heard Mr. T J Mahanta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B S Sinha, learned Additional PP appearing for the State. This is an application under Section 438 of Cr. P. C. for granting pre-arrest ba il to the petitioner, namely, Abdul Barek, who has been implicated by the police in connection with CID P.S. Case No. 20/2012 under Sections 120B/420/406 IPC. It is pointed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the colle agues of the petitioner have already been granted pre-arrest bail on 16.7.12 and

2.8.12 in AB No. 2716/12 and AB No. 3014/12 respectively. In view of this, I do not think that custodial interrogation of the petitioner i s called for either. Resultantly, the petitioner is directed to release on bail on his executing a PR bond of Rs. 20,000/ with one local surety of the like amou nt to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Gauhati High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. CID P.S. CASE No. 20 of 2012). ← Search more judgments