Lakshya Jyoti Das v. The State of Assam

ORDER Date : 28.02.2024

Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. T. Deuri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Page No.# 2/7 Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

¶2This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, who has been languishing in jail hajot in connection with Gorchuk P.S. Case No. 375/2023, under Sections 120-B/420/407/468/409 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶3Case Diary has been received. Perused the same. Heard both sides.

¶4It is submitted by Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, that the present accused/petitioner was earlier granted with pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 08/2023 and thereafter he was arrested in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 42/2024 on

01.02.2024 and he was on police remand till 12.02.2024 in connection with the said case. But, on his production after completion of the police remand, the Investigation Officer filed an application before the before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M) in connection with the present case with a prayer to shown arrest of the present accused/petitioner in connection with the present case, i.e. Gorchuk P.S. Case No. 375/2023. The only allegation brought against the present accused/petitioner is that he mutated the land in the name of one Jakir Hussain on the strength of a fake Sale Deed in spite of the fact that the accused/petitioner was aware about the registration of fake Sale Deed and he did the mutation in connivance with the other staffs of the Office.

Page No.# 3/7

¶5The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the accused/petitioner, while serving as a Circle Officer of Dispur Revenue Circle, neither verified the genuineness of the Sale Deed nor authenticated the genuineness of execution of the Sale Deed and mutated the plot of land in the name of Shri Jakir Hussain. He did the mutation only on the strength of the sale Deed which was earlier verified by the other Officer and he did the mutation without any knowledge or information that the Sale Deed, which was produced before him, was a fake Sale Deed. The informant of this case has already filed a revenue appeal before the District Commissioner praying for cancellation of mutation of order dated

02.07.2013 and the said mutation case is still pending. The alleged mutation was done in the year 2021, but the present F.I.R. was lodged with a delay of 2

(two) years and thus, the lodging of the F.I.R. in a belated stage itself infers that the story of the informant is not true and there is possibility of embellishment on account of such delay. Though the accused/ petitioner was shown arrest in connection with this case since 12.02.2024, but he is in custody in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 42/2024 since 01.02.2024. However, till date, there was no prayer from the I.O. for his police remand or his interrogation.

¶6He further submitted that the accused/petitioner was shown arrest in connection with the present case while he was in judicial custody in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 42/2024 and subsequently he also shown arrest in connection with Gorchuk P.S. Case No. 528/2024 on 24.02.2024 and Gorchuk P.S. Case No. 375/2023 on 12.02.2024 without any prior information regarding the pendency of other cases before the Gorchuk Police Station as well as the Dispur Police Station. Accordingly he submitted that it is the duty of the Page No.# 4/7 prosecution side or the State Authority to apprise the Court before taking such person into the custody. Accordingly, he relied on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Uday Chand & Ors. Vs. Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, Chief Minister, J & K & Ors., reported in (1983) 2 SCC 417, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has deprecated the practice of withholding information from the Court about the requirement to arrest the accused in other cases at the time of consideration of bail of the said accused.

¶7Accordingly, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the entire allegation is based on the documentary evidence and the I.O. has already collected sufficient documents which are in his custody and hence, the question of hampering or tampering the documentary evidence at this stage also does not arise. Though the accused/petitioner is in custody since 01.02.2024 in connection with Dispure P.S. Case No. 42/2024, but he was never interrogated by the I.O. after he was remanded to judicial custody on 12.02.2024, even if he was subsequently shown arrest in connection the present case. He further submitted that the wife of the present accused/petitioner is also pregnant and her expected date of delivery is in between 28.02.2024 to 21.03.2023 and considering this aspect also, on humanitarian ground, the accused/petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶8In this context, Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present accused/petitioner showing his direct involvement in the alleged offence and in all the connected cases also, the modus operandi is same where the Circle Page No.# 5/7 Officer and other staffs and employees of the Office of Sub Registrar are involved. More so, he was absconding for a considerable period though he was subsequently arrested in connection with this case and being an influential person, there is also probability of hampering and tampering with the investigation and accordingly the learned Additional Public Prosecutor raised objection in granting bail to the present accused/petitioner.

¶9After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, I have also perused the case record as well as the Case Diary. It is seen that the present accused/ petitioner was under police remand for a considerable period for almost about 12 days in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 42/2024 and thereafter he was in judicial custody and from the materials available in the Case Diary, it is seen that there was no subsequent prayer made by the I.O. for further interrogation of the present accused/petitioner inside the jail premises after he was brought before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M) on completion of his police remand. In connection with the present case, he is in custody for last 10 days and thus, the I.O. got ample opportunity to interrogate the accused/petitioner keeping him in custody. The Case Diary also reveals that there is sufficient progress in the investigation and most of the relevant documents are also seized in connection with this case. Further it is seen that there are some other cases which were also filed on the same facts and circumstances of this case wherein the allegation of fake registered Sale Deed and mutation was brought by the informant.

¶10In view of above, considering the entire circumstances of this case and Page No.# 6/7 also considering the view of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Uday Chand (supra), I am of the view that the I.O. has got ample opportunity to interrogate the accused/petitioner keeping him in custody in connection with this case and hence, I find that further custodial interrogation of the accused/petitioner seems to be not necessary here in this case.

¶11Accordingly, 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 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, the accused/petitioner, namely, Shri Lakshya Jyoti Das, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:

(i) that the petitioners shall fully co-operate with the investigation of the case and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required in connection with the investigation of the aforesaid P.S. Case;

(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 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 learned Page No.# 7/7 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, without prior permission.

¶12In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of.

The Case Diary be sent back.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010039752024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./528/2024 LAKSHYA JYOTI DAS S/O LATE AKAN DAS R/O UNIQUE. TOWERS, KHANAPARA, GUWAHATI P.S. DISPUR, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM PIN-781022 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K N CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA