Mohit v. The State of Assam

ORDER Date : 27.03.2024

Heard Ms. P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Page No.# 2/3

¶2This is the third bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., praying for pre-arrest bail by the petitioner, namely, Mohit, who is apprehending arrest in connection with Noonmati P.S. Case No. 343/2023, registered under Section 120(B)/419/420/468 IPC r/w Section 66/66D of I.T. Act.

¶3It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was neither present at the place of occurrence nor had any knowledge about the alleged offence. It is also submitted that the petitioner has never committed such offence as alleged in the FIR. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner had received a notice under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C. issued by the investigating officer of the instant case as such, the petitioner apprehends that he might be arrested. Considering the background of the case and the nature of the offence, benefit of pre-arrest bail may be extended to the petitioner.

¶4On the other hand, Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently objected to the prayer of the accused/petitioner by stating that the petitioner is very much involved in the alleged offence and there is sufficient incriminating materials found against the petitioner. Considering the nature of offence, the prayer of the petitioner may not be considered at this stage.

¶5I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the case diary.

¶6It appears that there are sufficient incriminating materials in the case diary against the petitioner implicating him with the commission of the alleged Page No.# 3/3 offence as stated in the FIR. The offence was committed in an organized manner as it appears from the materials in the case diary. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the prayer is rejected.

¶7The pre-arrest bail application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶8Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010046332024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/584/2024 MOHIT S/O BRAHMA MAND, R/O HOUSE NO. 264, VILL-DHANA KHURD MAJRA DHANAKALAN, BLOCK NO. 2, NAIYON WALI GALI, TEHSIL-HANSI, P.O.- DHANA KALAN, DIST-HISAR, HARYANA-125033 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. V N UPADHYAY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI