Sanjay Chouhan v. The State of Assam

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010052912024

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/679/2024 SANJAY CHOUHAN S/O RAM SUNDAR CHOUHAN, R/O HOUSE NO. 31, BYE LANE 3, ASHILA BHUYA ROAD, GANDHI BASTI, SILPUKHURI, P.O.-SILPUKHURI, P.S.- CHANDMARI, DIST-KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-781003 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR N N UPADHYAYA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

B E F O R E HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

28.03.2024

Heard Mr. N.N. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State respondent.

¶2This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Page No.# 2/3 1973 for granting pre-arrest bail to the accused petitioner, namely, i.e. Sanjay Chouhan, who are appending arrest, in connection with Chandmari P.S. Case No. 42 of 2024, registered under Section 120(B)/406/419/468/420 of the IPC.

¶3The case of the prosecution is that an FIR was lodged on 19.02.2024 alleging inter-alia that two accused persons, namely, Sakir Ahmed and Ruhul Amin had convinced the informant to make a payment of Rs. 65,000/- for purchase of a TVS NTorq Scooty. It is further alleged that along with the aforesaid two accused persons there are more accused involved, out of which one of them is the petitioner.

¶4Mr. N.N. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been roped in unnecessarily. He further submits that the petitioner has no role to play in the offence alleged.

¶5Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand strongly opposes the prayer for bail. He further submits that the investigation has substantially progressed and the statements of the witnesses have been recorded from where, it appears that the adverse materials collected at this stage are primarily against the main accused, who is Ashish Hussain.

¶6I have heard the submissions made at the Bar and I have perused the materials available on record.

¶7It appears that there are no adverse materials at this stage available against the petitioner. Considering the same, this Court is of the considered view that custodial interrogation may not be justified for the ongoing investigation.

¶8Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner named above, shall be released on pre-arrest bail in connection with the above noted case on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 30,000/-each with a suitable surety of Page No.# 3/3 like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject of course to conditions:-

(i) the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days failing which failing which from the 16th day, the pre-arrest bail shall have no force;

(ii) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to the informant or to any other persons who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from deposing against the petitioners in the pending trial against them; and,

(iii) the petitioner shall refrain from committing any offence similar to that with which he has been accused of in the instant case.

¶9With the above observation, this anticipatory bail application disposed of. Send back the case diary.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant