Nijamat Khan @ Niyamat v. The State of Assam

ORDER

05.03.2024

Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

¶2Apprehending arrest in connection with the Garchuk P.S. Case No. 47/2024, under Sections 420/406 of the IPC, this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is preferred by applicant namely, Nijamat Khan @ Niyamat for grant of pre-arrest bail. Page No.# 2/3

¶3The said case has been registered on the basis of one F.I.R. lodged by one Shiv Sagar Mishra, on 07.02.2024. The essence of allegation made in the FIR is that one Rajesh Kumar Yadav; Rohit Sahni; and Rafiqul, have stolen 30 numbers of Tirpal Roll and from his godown and delivered 20 numbers of Tirpal Roll to one Nijamat Khan's godown, situated at Datalpara and they have assured that they will bring back the same, but they have not done the same.

¶4Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and no way involved with the offence alleged in the FIR and that the applicant is a bonafide purchaser of the said Tirpal and the same has already been taken back and that he had no knowledge that the said Tirpals are stolen Tirpals. Mr. Ahmed further submits that the applicant is ready to cooperate with the investigating agency and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition.

¶5On the other hand, by producing the Case Diary before this Court, Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the IO has collected some incriminating materials against the applicant 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 applicant, in support of the allegation made in the FIR.

¶8In view of above and also considering the nature and gravity of the offence as well as the punishment prescribed for the same and further Page No.# 3/3 considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the applicant 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 Garchuk P.S. Case No. 47/2024, under Sections 420/406 of the IPC, they shall be enlarged on pre-arrest bail, on their executing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- only, with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.

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

(i) that the applicant shall make himself 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 him 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, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, without prior permission.

¶11In terms of this AB stands disposed of.

¶12The case diary be returned.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010040822024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/508/2024 NIJAMAT KHAN @ NIYAMAT S/O INTAJ KHAN R/O KALAPANI, GAROBASTI P.S. JALIKBARI, GUWAHATI-781011 DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MD A RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN