Sadananda Taid and Anr v. The State of Assam

ORDER Date : 12.02.2024

Heard Mr. P. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with Gogamukh P.S. Case No. 90/2023, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is submitted by Mr. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioners, that from the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged after 1 (one) year of the incident and the present accused/ petitioners, who are husband and wife, are being arrested in connection with this case on 13.12.2023 and they are behind the bar for last 61 days. Further it is submitted that both the petitioners, i.e. husband and wife, have 2 (two) minor children, who are in the custody of some other persons. Further, the I.O. has got sufficient time for custodial interrogation of the accused/ petitioners and hence, considering their length of detention, they may be released on bail. They will appear before the I.O. as and when their presence is required. In this context, Mr. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged only after the report of the FSL and from the forwarding report, it reveals that both the accused/petitioners were arrested Page No.# 3/4 finding sufficient materials against them. However, it is submitted that considering their length of detention, their bail prayer may be considered.

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for both sides and also considering the length of detention already undergone by the accused/petitioners, i.e. 61 days, and further considering the fact that the FSL report has already been received, I am of the view that the I.O. has got ample opportunity to interrogate the accused/petitioners keeping them in the custody and accordingly, further custodial interrogation of the accused/petitioners seems to be not necessary here in this case.

Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhemaji, the accused/petitioners, namely, (i) Shri Sadananda Taid & (ii) Smti Purnima Taid, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:

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

(ii) that the petitioners 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and

Page No.# 4/4

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

In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010027152024 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oBailoAppln./390/2024o SADANANDAoTAIDoANDoANR.o S/OoNARENoTAIDo R/OoVILL-oNAMONIoTAZIKo P.O.oANDoP.S.oGOGAMUKHo DIST.oDHEMAJI,oASSAM 2:oSMTI.oPURNIMAoTAID oW/OoSRIoSADANANDAoTAIDo R/OoVILL-oNAMONIoTAZIKo P.O.oANDoP.S.oGOGAMUKHo DIST.oDHEMAJI oASSAo VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMo REP.oBYoPP,oASSAM AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oMR.oPoHAZARIKAo AdvocateoforotheoRespondento:oPP,oASSAMoo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA