THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Outcome
Allowed
circumspection, petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 439
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 147, 148, 307, 326, 341, 506
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. Considering all aspects and considering the submissions at the Bar with circumspection, petition is allowed.
Judgment
Heard Mr. M. Rahman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms. A. Begum, learned Addl. P.P. for the State respondent. Page No.# 2/3
This application under Section 439 Cr.P.C, is preferred by the petitioner, namely, Md. Imran Hussain, who is in judicial custody since 22.08.2023 in connection with Moirabari P.S. Case No. 182/2023, registered under Sections 147/148/341/307/326/506 IPC (corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1451/2023.
The FIR unfolds that on 15.08.2023 at about 10.00 P.M. while Md. Apjarul Hoque and Md. Akramul Hussain along with Miss Arfin Sultana were returning home from school after flag hoisting, the present petitioner along with the co- accused named in the FIR waylaid them in front of their house and verbally abused and assaulted them with dao, iron rod, causing grievous injuries. When the injured person raised alarm, the informant rushed to the spot and at that time, the accused along with the petitioner named in the FIR threatened the informant with dao.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that no specific allegation has been raised against the present petitioner.
The learned Addl. P.P. has raised serious objection stating that the petitioner is booked under a heinous offence.
I have considered the submissions that the petitioner is in custody since
22.08.2023. Investigation may have presumably progressed to a considerable extent. Page No.# 3/3
I have considered the submission of the prayer for parity, as the co- accused have been granted interim bail in connection with the instant case vide order dated 21.09.2023 in connection with AB No. 3241/2023. The petitioner is a local resident and he has pledged to cooperate with the investigation.
Operative part
Considering all aspects and considering the submissions at the Bar with circumspection, petition is allowed.
The petitioner is to be enlarged on bail of Rs. 50,000/- with a suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Morigaon, under the conditions that:- (i) the petitioner will refrain from such activities with which he is alleged, failing which bail order of the petitioner will be cancelled. (ii) the petitioner will not leave jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission till completion of the investigation. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: circumspection, petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 147, 148, 307, 326, 341, 506.
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.