VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Gauhati High Court 2024 › High Court of Gauhati

Md. Fulbabu Sk v. The State of Assam and Anr

Disposed Of
Court
High Court of Gauhati
Decided
3 June 2024
Bench
S. Justice Susmita Phukan Khaundauthor
Case no.
AB 280/2024

Judgment

PageoNo.#o1/3 GAHC010022362024 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oAB/280/2024o MD.oFULBABUoSK.o S/OoMOKBULoHUSSAINo R/OoVILL-oUTTARoBANGTIMARI,oP.O.oDHANUA,oP.S.oMANKACHAR,o DIST.oSOUTHoSALMARAoMANKACHAR,oASSAM,o PIN-783135 VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDoANR.o REP.oBYoTHEoPP,oASSAM 2:GAZIBORoRAHMAN oS/OoLATEoNAZMULoHOQUEo R/OoVLL-oMANULLYAPARAo P.O.oFEKAMRI oP.S.oSOUTHo SALMARA oDIST.oSOUTHoSALMARAoMANKACHAR oASSAMo PIN-78313o AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oMR.oMoISLAMo AdvocateoforotheoRespondento:oPP,oASSAMoo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo BEFORE HONOURABLEoMRS.oJUSTICEoSUSMITAoPHUKANoKHAUND ORDERo

04.06.2024 Page No.# 2/3

¶1Heard Ms. P. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for respondent no. 1 and Mr. M. R. Khandakar, learned counsel for respondent no. 2.

¶2This application has been filed under Section 438 of the Cr.PC by the petitioner with prayer for pre arrest bail as he is apprehending arrest in connection with Mankachar P.S. Case No. 308/2023 dated 25.07.2023 (GR No. 720/2023) under Sections 376 AB/511 of the IPC, read with Section 8/10 of the POCSO Act, and also read with Section 67 of the IT Act.

¶3It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is not the prime accused. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner has abetted the commission of offence, and pre arrest bail is not maintainable in connection with this case.

¶4I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection.

¶5I have also scrutinized the Case Diary. Indeed there are incriminating materials

in

the

Case

Diary

against

the

petitioner.

¶6There appears to be no justified ground to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage of investigation.

¶7Petition is rejected. Page No.# 3/3

¶8Send back the Case Diary.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Source: High Court of Gauhati, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.