Tafajul Hussain and 4 Ors v. The State of Assam

ORDER

11.03.2024

¶1Heard Mr. N. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. K. Parashar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

¶2The petitioners, namely, (1) Tafajul Hussain, (2) Mozida Begum @ Mozida Khatun, (3) Imdadul Hoque @ Imdadul Hussain, (4) Abu Sufiyan and (5) Abdul Kaiyum, have approached this Court for the second time praying for grant of pre arrest bail who are apprehending arrest in connection with Laharighat P.S. Case No. 267/2023 under Section 419/420 of IPC.

¶3Mr. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioners on instruction submits that the petitioners namely, (1) Tafajul Hussain and (3) Imdadul Hoque @ Imdadul Hussain, have already been arrested in connection with the aforesaid case. Accordingly, he submits that there is no cause of action to press this bail application so far relating to the said petitioners namely, (1) Tafajul Hussain and (3) Imdadul Hoque @ Imdadul Hussain.

¶4This Court after perusal of the case diary rejected such prayer of the petitioners for grant of pre arrest bail under its order dated 01.12.2023 passed in Page No.# 3/3 AB/3852/2023, after finding that sufficient incriminating materials are available against the petitioners in the case diary.

¶5In the instant bail application, under its order dated 05.02.2024, this Court had again called for the case dairy. Accordingly, the case diary has been produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor today.

¶6This Court has once again gone through the case diary. It is seen from the materials available on record including the statements of the victim and other villagers that two other arrested accused, the petitioners were kingpin and therefore, their custodial interrogation may be necessary.

¶7This Court has also considered the stage of investigation, which also suggests that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners may be necessary.

¶8Yet another aspect of the matter is that this Court has not found any new grounds, which were not available when the bail was rejected by this Court under its order dated 01.12.2023 passed in AB/3852/2023.

¶9That being the position, the prayer of bail for the petitioners stand rejected. However, while parting with the record, it is made clear that the observations made in this order is for the purpose of consideration of the prayer of bail only and same should not be treated as affirmation of merit of the prosecution case.

¶10With the aforesaid determination and observations, this bail application stands dismissed.

¶11Case diary be returned back to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/3 GAHC010020072024 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oAB/248/2024o TAFAJULoHUSSAINoANDo4oORSo S/O-oLT.oABUoBAKKARoSIDIQUE,oR/OoVILL.oCHUTIYAGAON,oP.S.o LAHARIGHAT,oDIST.oMORIGAON,oASSAM 2:oMOZIDAoBEGUMo@oMOZIDAoKHATUN oW/O-oTAFAJULoHUSSAIN oR/OoVILL.oCHUTIYAGAON oP.S.oLAHARIGHAT oDIST.oMORIGAON oASSAM 3:oIMDADULoHOQUEo@oIMDADULoHUSSAIN oS/O-oTAFAJULoHUSSAIN oR/OoVILL.oCHUTIYAGAON oP.S.oLAHARIGHAT oDIST.oMORIGAON oASSAM 4:oABUoSUFIYAN oS/O-oTAFAJULoHUSSAIN oR/OoVILL.oCHUTIYAGAON oP.S.oLAHARIGHAT oDIST.oMORIGAON oASSAM 5:oABDULoKAIYUM oS/O-oTAFAJULoHUSSAIN oR/OoVILL.oCHUTIYAGAON oP.S.oLAHARIGHAT oDIST.oMORIGAON oASSAo VERSUSo Page No.# 2/3 THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY