THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM & Anr. v. THE STATE OF ASSAM
Case at a glance
- Bench
- ROBIN PHUKAN
Outcome
Disposed of
In terms of above, this anticipatory bail application stands disposed of
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 406, 420, 468, 471
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438
Judgment
O R D E R Page No.# 2/4
26.08.2022. Apprehending arrest in connection with Bhangaghar P. S. Case No.172/2022, under Sections 420/406/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is preferred by accused/applicants, namely, (1) Sri Dinesh Sarma and (2) Sri Kaushik Sarma, for grant of pre-arrest bail. Heard Ms. L. Das, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. It is to be mentioned here that Bhangaghar P. S. Case No.172/2022, under Sections 420/406/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, has been registered on the basis of one F.I.R., lodged by one Smti. Prativa Sharma to the effect that she has entered into an agreement for construction of a multistoried building with “Swastik Developers” on 19.01.2019, represented by Mr. Kaushik Sarma and Mr. Kishore Kumar Sarma and later on, said agreement was revoked as “Omm Realtors” and new partner Mr.
Dinesh Sarma was introduced. The representative of the Omm Realtors fraudulently used her name and also forged her signature and applied for permission to construct the building from the GMDA and the informant was not aware about the filing of application in her name and they also never obtained any permission from her and only on enquiry, she came to know that the GMDA had issued permission in her name on 10.06.2019. Ms. L. Das, learned counsel for the applicants submits that in pursuant to the order dated 20.07.2022, both the applicants appeared before the I.O. and they have been cooperating with the investigating agency and that the informant has lodged this case only to harass the applicants and she has received more than Page No.# 3/4 the agreed amount here in this case and therefore, it is contended to make the interim order dated 20.07.2022 absolute, in the same terms and conditions.
On the other hand, producing the case diary before this Court, Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Addl. P.P., Assam submits that though there is not materials against the applicant No.1 Sri Dinesh Sarma, yet there is sufficient materials against the applicant No.2 Kaushik Sarma and he is not cooperating with the investigating agency and has not submitted the relevant documents for sending the same for examination in the FSL. In reply to the submission of the learned Addl. P.P., Assam, Ms. L. Das, learned counsel submits that the I.O. has seized the relevant documents vide seizure list dated 14.07.2022, on being furnished by the applicants and there is no other documents to be submitted by the I.O. and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the Case Diary produced before this Court with the assistance of Mr.
Operative part
Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. It appears that the I.O. has collected sufficient materials in support of the allegation made in the FIR against the applicant No.2 Kaushik Sarma but it appears that he has been cooperating with the investigating agency and there is nothing in the case diary to show misusing of liberty by the applicant No.2, after granting the privilege of interim pre-arrest bail. Besides, it also appears that the I.O. has achieved substantial progress in investigation and as such his custodial interrogation is not required here in this case. Accordingly custodial interrogation of the accused/applicants is unwarranted Page No.# 4/4 and the interim order dated 20.07.2022 absolute in the same terms and conditions. In terms of above, this anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. The Case Diary be returned. Comparing Assistant JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In terms of above, this anticipatory bail application stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 406, 420, 468, 471; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438.
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.