Saiful Islam @ Monbabu Islam v. State of Assam

ORDER

08.05.2024

Heard Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. This application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner, who is apprehending arrest in connection with South Salmara P. S. Case No.31/2024 (GR Case No.79/2024) under Sections 147/148/143/325/326/307/379 of the Indian Penal Code. The Case Diary has been received and I have perused the same. It is submitted by Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused/petitioner is innocent and he is not at all involved in the alleged offence. Rather he raised voice to stop the quarrel and to save the victim. He further submits that the petitioner already appeared before the IO after obtaining the order of interim pre-arrest bail. He is ready and willing to co-operate with the I.O. in the further investigation of the case, if he is granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. In this context, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Sharma, has submitted that there is sufficient incriminating material against the accused/petitioner showing his direct involvement in the alleged offence. Rather, the accused/petitioner is the main culprit of the alleged offence and he is the one who assaulted the victim by using sharp weapon and as a result of which the victim sustained grievous injury on his chest and also sustained head injury. Accordingly, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor raised objection in granting pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides and Page No.# 3/3 also considering the incriminating materials available in the Case Diary, I find that custodial interrogation of the accused/petitioner may be necessary for the interest of justice and therefore, I find it not a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner and accordingly, the same stands rejected. Consequently, the interim order dated 02.05.2024 stands vacated.

In terms of above, this anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.

The Case Diary be sent back.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/3 GAHC010084112024 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oAB/1107/2024o SAIFULoISLAMo@oMONBABUoISLAMo S/OoSOHIJOLoHOQUEo@oSOFIJOL,o VILL.-oBHIMAPARA,oHATSINGIMARI,o P.S.-oSOUTHoSALMARA,oDIST.-oSOUTHoSALMARAoMANKACHAR,oASSAM,o PIN-o783105. VERSUSo STATEoOFoASSAMo REP.oBYoLEARNEDoP.P.,oASSAM. AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oMR.oMoISLAMo AdvocateoforotheoRespondento:oPP,oASSAMoo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA