THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 22 Jul 2024
- Bench
- MITALI THAKURIA
Outcome
Disposed of
In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of
Provisions considered
Judgment
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : SPECIAL PP ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA Date : 22.07.2024 ORDER Heard Mr. S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. I. Borthakur, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State of Assam/Wild Life. Page No.# 2/3 This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with C.R. Case No. 11/2024, under Sections -/39/40(2)/48(A)/49 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, arising out of Offence Report No. JR/02 of 2024- 25, dated 23.05.2024. It is submitted by Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the present accused/petitioner is behind the bar for last 61 days and till now, the I.O. has failed to submit the Charge-Sheet and thus, he has already completed his statutory period and hence, considering his length of detention, he may be enlarged on bail.
Operative part
In this context, Mr. Borthakur, learned Special Public Prosecutor, Wild Life, has submitted that on enquiry made by him, it is reported that the offence report is not yet submitted in spite of lapse of statutory period and hence, he raised no objection in allowing the present accused/petitioner on bail. However, he submitted that some strict conditions may be imposed while granting bail. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, without going by the merit of the case and only considering the length of detention, I am of the view that the I.O. has got ample opportunity to interrogate the accused/ petitioner keeping him in custody and accordingly, further custodial interrogation of the accused/petitioner seems to be not necessary here in this case. Page No.# 3/3 Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only with one local surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned SDJM, Jonai, the accused/petitioner, namely, Tama Taso, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer 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 leave the jurisdiction of the learned SDJM, Jonai, without prior permission. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gauhati High Court, on 22 Jul 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.