✦ Gauhati High Court · 23 Feb 2023

DHRUBAJYOTI DAS v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

Ab No. 3945 of 2023MALASRI NANDI

Case at a glance

Decided
23 Feb 2023
Bench
MALASRI NANDI

Outcome

Disposed of

The petition stands disposed of accordingly

Provisions considered

Judgment

Operative part

DHRUBAJYOTI DAS S/O SRI BALEN KUMAR DAS @ BALEN DAS, VILL.- GARIGAON, P.O.- GARIGAON, P.S.- JALUKBARI, GUWAHATI, DIST.- KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY P.P., ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A CHAUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI Date : 23.02.2023 ORDER Heard Mr. D. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. Page No.# 2/3 This is an application made under Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking pre- arrest bail by the petitioner, namely, Dhrubajyoti Das, apprehending arrest in connection with Jalukbari P.S. Case No. 670/2023, registered under Section 143/144/353/341/506/34 of IPC r/w Section 14/17 of Assam Game & Betting Act, 1970. Mr. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Police Officer as per direction of this Court and his statement has already been recorded after he was granted interim protection. He has not misused the liberty granted to him; rather, he co-operates with the investigation of the case. Therefore, the privilege of pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner may be made absolute. Mr. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the petitioner may appear before the investigating officer as and when called for. As the statement of petitioner has already been recorded by the investigating officer and as such, his custodial interrogation may not be required. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the case diary. It appears that the petitioner has not misused the liberty granted to him while availing interim protection. It is directed to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer as and when called for. Considering all, this Court is of the view that the petitioner deserves to be granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the interim protection granted to the petitioner vide order dated 30.11.2023, is made absolute on the same terms and conditions, as reflected. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Return the case diary. Page No.# 3/3 JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition stands disposed of accordingly

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 143, 144, 341, 353, 506.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Gauhati High Court, on 23 Feb 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. 3945 of 2023). ← Search more judgments