THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Outcome
Bail refused
Accordingly, the bail petition is rejected
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 161, 438
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 302
Key paragraphs
- Para 1111. In view of my foregoing discussions, it is thereby held that there appears no justified ground to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present petitioners. Accordingly, the bail petition is rejected.
Judgment
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K ROYCHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM Page No.# 2/3 HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND BEFORE ORDER
24.05.2024 Heard Mr P K Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners, 1) Ansar Ali @ Anser Ali, 2) Anowar Ali and 3) Sajeeda Bibi.
The petitioners have filed this application under Section 438 CrPC, with prayer for pre-arrest bail, as they are apprehending arrest in connection with Mankachar PS Case No. 88/2024, under Sections 341/325/354/354-B/34 and added Section 302 IPC.
Heard Mr R R Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam/respondent.
The allegations against the petitioners is that all the petitioners assaulted the victim, which led to her death.
It is submitted on behalf of petitioners that the petitioner No. 3, who was granted interim pre-arrest bail vide order dated 09.05.2024, has appeared before the IO and she has cooperated with the investigation. Moreover, it is submitted on behalf of all the petitioners that the victim died a natural death as she was suffering from diarrhea. The victim fell down and sustained fatal injuries on her head.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised serious objection stating that there are incriminating materials against the petitioners in the Case Diary.
The witnesses’ statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC, have implicated all Page No.# 3/3 the three petitioners.
I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. I have also scrutinized the Case Diary and the Post-Mortem report of the victim.
The opinion of the Medical Officer is that the death was ante-mortem in nature.
The petitioners are booked under a serious offence and they are not entitled to pre- arrest bail.
Operative part
In view of my foregoing discussions, it is thereby held that there appears no justified ground to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present petitioners. Accordingly, the bail petition is rejected.
The interim bail granted by this Court in respect of the petitioner No. 3, stands vacated.
Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the bail petition is rejected
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 161, 438; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 302.
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.