Mainul Haque Ali @ Mainul Haq Ali v. The State of Assam

ORDER

14.05.2024

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

¶2Apprehending arrest in connection with the Basistha P.S. Case No. 188/2024, under Sections 120[B]/420/419/468/471 of the IPC, this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is preferred by applicant namely, Mainul Haque Ali @ Mainul Haq Ali 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 Bharat Kumar Nath, on 20.03.2024. The essence of allegation made in the FIR is that one Helena Khatun @ Maidul Islam and Mahammad Ali @ Refejuddin had illegally and unauthorizedly occupied the land belonging to the informant by preparing forged document and forging his signature and introducing some other person as Bharat Kumar Nath before the Registering authority.

¶4Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant is innocent and no way involved with the offence alleged in the FIR and that he 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 fairly submits that the materials collected so far in the case diary, are inadequate to show the complicity of the applicant with the offence alleged in the FIR.

¶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 I.O. has achieved significant progress of the case and in view of the materials collected so far in the case diary against the applicant, his custodial interrogation in the interest of investigation seems to be not warranted here in this case.

¶8In view of above and considering the nature and gravity of the offence as well as the punishment prescribed for the same and also considering Page No.# 3/3 the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, this Court is inclined to extend the privilege of interim pre-arrest bail to the applicant.

¶9Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the applicant, in connection with the Basistha P.S. Case No. 188/2024, under Sections 120[B]/420/419/468/471 of the IPC, he shall be enlarged on pre-arrest bail, on his 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 GAHC010071912024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/921/2024 MAINUL HAQUE ALI @ MAINUL HAQ ALI S/O LATE MAZID ALI, R/O VILL- BIHDIA, P.O.- BAIHATA CHARIALI, P.S.- BAIHATA CHARIALI, DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR J ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN