Sohid Hazari @ Sohid Ahmed Hazari and 2 Ors v. The State of Assam

ORDER

05.03.2024

Heard Mr. R.A. Mazumder, learned counsel for the applicants and Ms. A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

¶2Apprehending arrest in connection with the Hailakandi P.S. Case No. 331/2023, under Sections 120(B)/294/353/435/511 of the IPC, this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is preferred by applicants namely, Sohid Hazari @ Sohid Ahmed; Baharul Alom Choudhury; and Sabbir Choudhury @ Sabbir for grant of pre-arrest bail.

¶3The said case has been registered on the basis of one F.I.R. lodged by SI Bipul Chanda, on 27.12.2023. The essence of allegation made in the FIR is that on 26.12.2023, at about 4:15 pm, on receipt of an FIR, about an accident, that took place at T.E. PWD Road near Boro Bunglow, between TATA Magic Truck, bearing registration No. AS-24-AC-4715 and E-Rickshaw, bearing registration No. AS-24-ER-2451, and while the informant along with his staff arrived at the spot and shifted the injured to medical, then some persons namely, Sohid Hazari; Javed Ahmed Mazumder; Baharul Alom Choudhury; Kutimajan Choudhury; Kanduk Choudhury; and Sabbir Choudhury, obstructed them in discharging their official duty and also abuse them with slang languages and created law and order situation.

¶4Mr. Mazumder, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and no way involved with the offence alleged in the FIR and that they are ready to cooperate with the investigating agency and Page No.# 3/4 therefore, it is contended to allow the petition.

¶5On the other hand, by producing the Case Diary before this Court, Ms. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the applicant No. 3 namely, Sabbir Choudhury @ Sabbir had notice under Section 41(A) of the Cr.P.C. and appeared before the IO, but the applicant Nos. 1 & 2 had not appeared before the IO. Ms. Begum further submits that the IO has collected some incriminating materials against the applicants and that the investigation is still going on and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition.

¶6Having heard the submission 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 produced before this Court, with the assistance of learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶7The case diary indicates that the IO has collected some incriminating materials against the applicants, in support of the allegation made in the FIR. However, it appears that the IO has achieved significant progress of the case. It also appears that the applicant No. 3 appeared before the IO.

¶8In view of above and having considered the nature and gravity of the offence and punishment prescribed for the same and also considering the stage of investigation, this Court is of the view that further custodial interrogation of the applicants may not be required, in the interest of investigation.

¶9Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the applicant, in connection with the Hailakandi P.S. Case No. 331/2023, under Sections 120(B)/294/353/435/511 of the IPC, they shall be enlarged on pre-arrest bail, on their executing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- each only, with one surety of like Page No.# 4/4 amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.

¶10The above privilege is, however, subject to the following conditions:

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

(ii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi, without prior permission.

¶11In terms of this AB stands disposed of.

¶12The case diary be returned.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010018802024 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oAB/243/2024o SOHIDoHAZARIo@oSOHIDoAHMEDoHAZARIoANDo2oORSo SONoOFoSHOFIQUEoRAHMANoHAZARI,oRESIDENToOFoVILL-oITARKANDIo PART-II,oP.S.oANDoDIST-oHAILAKANDI,oASSAM-o788151 2:oBAHARULoALOMoCHOUDHURY oSONoOFoNURULoHOQUEoCHOUDHURY oRESIDENToOFoVILL-oNARAINPURoPART-II oP.S.oANDoDIST-oHAILAKANDI oASSAM-o788151 3:oSABBIRoCHOUDHURYo@oSABBIRoAHMEDoCHOUDHURY oSONoOFoSHOWKAToALIoCHOUDHURY oRESIDENToOFoVILL-oNARAINPURoPART-II oP.S.oANDoDIST-oHAILAKANDI oASSAM-o78815o VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMo REPRESENTEDoBYoPUBLICoPROSECUTOR,oASSAM AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oMR.oRoAoMAZUMDERo AdvocateoforotheoRespondento:oPP,oASSAMoo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN