Atowar Rahman v. The State of Assam

ORDER

20.11.2024

Heard Mr. N. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. This application filed under Section 439 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioners, who have been languishing in jail hazot since 25.09.2024 in connection with Jogighopa P.S. Case No.97/2024 registered under Sections 143/147/353/307/34 of IPC, read with Section 25(1-AB) of the Arms Act, 1959, and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. The Case Diary has been received and I have perused the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Uddin, has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has no involvement in the alleged offence. He submits that a false and concocted allegation has been brought against him. It is contended by the petitioner that he does not have any vehicle; however, on the day of the incident, during a Naka checking, police personnel collected fines from individuals for traffic violations but did not provide receipts. This led to anger among some of the individuals, resulting in a quarrel between local persons and the police personnel. Consequently, an FIR was lodged, and the name of the present petitioner was included along with other accused persons. The petitioner was arrested in connection with this case on 25.09.2024 and has been in custody since then. Given that the Investigating Officer (I.O.) has had sufficient time for custodial interrogation, further custodial interrogation may not be necessary. Further, the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the I.O. for further investigation of the case if he is enlarged on bail. Page No.# 3/4 On the other hand, Mr. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that there is sufficient incriminating evidence against the accused/petitioner, as well as others. He contends that the petitioner is the person who obstructed the official duties of the police personnel engaged in Naka checking of vehicles and also snatched the arm of the police personnel, for which he was subsequently arrested. The petitioner, along with others, prevented people from approaching within 100 meters of the Naka checking area. Therefore, the present petitioner not only obstructed but also assaulted and snatched the arm of the police personnel on duty. Accordingly, Mr. Baruah raises objections to granting bail to the accused/petitioner at this stage. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for both sides and on perusal of the case diary, it is evident that there is sufficient incriminating material against the accused/petitioner, as well as the other co-accused persons, who were specifically involved in this case. The present petitioner is alleged to have snatched a pistol from police personnel. Without delving into the merits of the case, and considering that the petitioner has been in custody since 25.09.2024, I am of the view that the Investigating Officer (I.O.) has had ample opportunity to interrogate the accused/petitioner while keeping him in custody. Given the submissions from both sides and the length of detention already undergone by the accused/petitioner, i.e., 56 days, I find that further custodial interrogation does not seem necessary at this stage. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Elaka Magistrate, the accused/petitioner, namely, Atowar Rahman, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:

(i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required;

(ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so Page No.# 4/4 as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and

(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Elaka Magistrate, without prior permission. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010224812024 ooooooo 2024:GAU-AS:11289 ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oBailoAppln./3297/2024o ATOWARoRAHMANo S/OoLToEBADULLAHoSK,oVILL-oBOWALIMARIoPT-I,oP.S.-JOGIGHOPA,oDIST-o BONGAIGAON,oASSAM VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMo REPRESENTEDoBYoTHEoPUBLICoPROSECUTOR,oASSAM AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oMR.oNoUDDIN,oMS.oAoAKHTAR,MRoSoKoCHHETRY,MR.oMo ISLAMo AdvocateoforotheoRespondento:oPP,oASSAM,oo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA