THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 379, 429
- Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021 s. 13(1)
Judgment
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1794/2022 MD. INSAN ALI S/O- LATE NAUCHAD ALI, R/O- VILL.- DALBARI, P.S. AND DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 782104. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE P.P., ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N ZAMAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
05.08.2022 ORDER Heard Shri A. Ganguly, learned Counsel for the petitioner, namely, Md. Insan Ali who has filed this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the Cr.PC praying for pre-arrest bail in connection with Morigaon PS Case No. 877/2021 under Sections 379/429 of IPC read with Section 13(1) of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021. Pursuant to the order dated 29.06.2022, Shri P. Borthakur, learned Addl. PP, Assam has produced the Case Diary. Page No.# 2/2 At the outset, Shri Ganguly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submited that on an earlier occasion i.e. on 31.03.2022, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected after perusal of the Case Diary. He, however, submits that in the meantime all the other accused has been released on bail. On the other hand, Shri P. Barthakur, learned Addl. PP, Assam submits that no fresh grounds have been cited in the present petition except for the fact of grant of bail to other accused persons. The learned Addl. PP further submits that in the Case Diary, there are sufficient materials to implicate the petitioner with the offence. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, this Court has found that apart from the fact that there are materials of direct involvement of the petitioner with the offence, no discernible new grounds have been cited for filing the second application for anticipatory bail. Further this Court is unable to accept the proposition that since other co-accused have been released on bail, a similar treatment will be granted inasmuch as, in the instant case the prayer is not for regular bail but for anticipatory bail. In view of the above, the instant petition stands rejected. Comparing Assistant JUDGE
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.