✦ Gauhati High Court · 04 Aug 2023

FIDUSUR RAHMAN v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

Ab No. 2175 of 2023MALASRI NANDI

Case at a glance

Outcome

Disposed of

The pre-arrest bail application stands disposed of accordingly

Provisions considered

Judgment

Operative part

FIDUSUR RAHMAN S/O AZIZUR RAHMAN R/O FATEMA MANZIL, SRIMANTAPUR BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI-781007, P.O. AND P.S. BHANGAGARH, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM PH. NO. 9387123233 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B D KONWAR SR. ADV. Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI Date : 04.08.2023 ORDER Heard Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Additional Page No.# 2/2 Public Prosecutor for the State. This is an application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., praying for pre- arrest bail by the petitioner, namely, Md. Fidusur Rahman, in connection with BI(EO) P.S. Case No. 05/2022, registered under Sections 120(B)/420/406/409 IPC. It has been submitted by the learned Senior counsel that the co-accused person named in the FIR has already been granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail by this Court. Therefore, to maintain the parity, the prayer of the petitioner may be considered. On the other hand, Mr. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently objected to the prayer of the petitioner by stating that the petitioner is very much involved in the present case. Therefore, he prays that the prayer of the petitioner may not be considered at this stage. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused case dairy. It appears that there are sufficient incriminating materials in the case diary against the petitioner implicating him with the commission of the alleged offence of misappropriation of money and fraud committed to the bank. The offence was committed in an organized manner as it appears from the materials in the case diary. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the prayer is rejected. The pre-arrest bail application stands disposed of accordingly. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: The pre-arrest bail application stands disposed of accordingly

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 120(B), 406, 409, 420.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Gauhati High Court, on 04 Aug 2023. The bench was MALASRI NANDI.

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. Ab No. 2175 of 2023). ← Search more judgments