Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail refused
or pre-arrest bail is hereby rejected
Provisions considered
Judgment
Operative part
This is an application made under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail fo r the petitioners, namely, 1. Abdul Awal, 2. Md. Babul Hussain, in connection wi th Kalgachia Police Station Case No. 66/2011 (G.R. Case No. 786/2011), under Sec tion 447/326/307/34 of the IPC. Perused the above application and materials on record. Also perused the releva nt case diary. Heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, and M r. B. S. Sinha, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing on behalf of t he respondents. In view of the fact that the perusal of the case diary reveals sufficient incrim inating materials against the petitioner No. 1, namely, Abdul Awal, his prayer f or pre-arrest bail is hereby rejected. The interim directions for pre-arrest bail, passed in this Anticipatory Bail Ap plication, on 03.06.2011, in favour of the petitioner No. 1 above-named, shall a ccordingly stand vacated. In view, however, of the fact that perusal of the case diary does not reveal suc h incriminating materials against the petitioner No. 2, namely, Md. Babul Hussai n, which would warrant his custodial detention and in view also of the fact that perusal of the case diary does not reveal that his liberty, on bail, would adve rsely affect further investigation, if any, of the case, the interim directions for pre-arrest bail, passed in this Anticipatory Bail Application, on 03.06.2011 , in favour of the petitioner No. 2 above-named, are hereby made absolute subjec t to the condition that the petitioner No. 2 above-named shall, within three day s from today, appear before the Officer-in-Charge, Kalgachia Police Station, and make himself available for interrogation by police at all reasonable time. With the above observations and directions, this Anticipatory Bail Application s tands disposed of.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: or pre-arrest bail is hereby rejected
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438; Indian Penal Code, 1860.
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.