THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 161, 438
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 120B, 313, 366, 376
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 s. 4
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Judgment
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1559/2023 BAHAR ALI S/O LATE HAJI BANIZ ALI R/O VILL- BHALUKKANDI P.O. PATAKATA P.S. SOUTH SALMARA DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-783127 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M Z SHAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR Date : 08.06.2023 ORDER Heard Mr. M. Z. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent. This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is filed for granting the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the Page No.# 2/2 petitioner, namely, Bahar Ali, apprehending arrest in connection with South Salmara P.S. Case No. 368/2022 registered u/s 120B/366/376/313/34 of the IPC r/w Section 4 of POCSO Act and 3/4 of D.V. Act. The Case diary, as called for, is placed before the Court. It may be mentioned that by order, dated 04.05.2023, this Court granted the privilege of interim pre- arrest bail to the petitioner. Mr. RJ Baruah, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, submits that the case diary shows that the petitioner appeared before the investigating officer and got his statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as per the interim pre arrest bail granted earlier. There is no adverse report against the petitioner from the I.O. Therefore, the interim pre-arrest bail granted vide order, dated 04.05.2023 is hereby made absolute, subject to the following conditions- (i) That the petitioner shall co-operate in investigation as and when required; (ii) 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; and (iii) That the petitioner shall not hamper or tamper with the investigation in any manner. Return the case diary. This disposes off the anticipatory bail application. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 161, 438; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 120B, 313, 366, 376; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 4; Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gauhati High Court, on 08 Jun 2023. The bench was AJIT BORTHAKUR.
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.