THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S MITRA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER

06.10.2023 Heard Mr. S. Mitra, learned counsel for the applicant; Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent; and Mr. S.K. Jain, learned counsel for the informant.

Apprehending arrest in connection with Mangaldai PS Case No. 139/2022, under Sections 406/420 of the IPC, this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is preferred by applicant namely, Sri Ashish Choudhary for grant of pre-arrest bail. Page No.# 2/3

Mr. Mitra, learned counsel for the applicant submits that this Court was pleased to grant interim protection to the applicant vide order dated 14.08.2023, and pursuant to the said order, he has been cooperating with the investigating agency and therefore, it is contended to make the interim order dated 14.08.2023, absolute in the same terms and conditions.

On the other Mr. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor by producing the case diary before this court, submits that this Court vide order dated

14.08.2023, had granted the privilege of interim pre-arrest bail to the applicant, but the applicant has failed to appear before the IO, pursuant to said order and therefore, on completion of investigation, the IO has submitted charge sheet against the applicant, being charge sheet No. 344/2023, dated 30.08.2023, under Section 406/420 of the IPC, showing him absconder.

Whereas, Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the informant submits that since the applicant has failed to appear before the IO, as per direction of this Court, he has strong objection in the event of making the interim order dated 14.08.2023, absolute in the same terms and conditions.

Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the Case Diary with the assistance of learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

Having regards to the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and further considering the fact that after completion of investigation the IO has submitted charge sheet against the applicant, showing him as absconder, on account of his non-appearance before the IO and also considering the fact that he has not cooperated with the investigating agency, as per direction of this Court and violated the order of this Court, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the applicant.

Accordingly, the interim order dated 14.08.2023, stands vacated and Page No.# 3/3 this AB stands dismissed.

The case diary be returned. Comparing Assistant JUDGE