Nuruddin Khan v. The State of Assam

ORDER

16.05.2024

Heard Mr. N. Ahmed, learned counsel for the accused and Mr. K.K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

¶2This application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is preferred by accused namely, Nuruddin Khan, who has been languishing in jail hazot in connection with the Patacharkuchi P.S. Case No. 59/2024, under Sections 420/379 of the IPC, for granting bail.

¶3The said case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by one Page No.# 2/3 Uday Deka, on 19.03.2024. The essence of allegations made in the FIR is that on

08.12.2023, at about 11/12 pm, he has withdrawn money from the SBI ATM situated at Sarupeta, then three unknown persons asked him that one option has displayed in the ATM, then he again put his ATM in the machine to find out his mini statement, but he could not succeed in the same. Thereafter, on 11.12.2023, he came to know that a sum of Rs. 41,000/- were withdrawn from his account, then through his YONO App, he checked his statement and came to know that someone has withdrawn money from the SBI ATM situated at Bhawanipur and then he got to know that the ATM, which was with him belonged to one Bhabesh Muchahari and therefore, he strongly suspects that those three boys could have exchanged his ATM. Thereafter, on 18.03.2024, he came to know that Bajali Police has detained three persons in ATM stealing case and after seeing their photo of them he could recognize those three persons who were involved in his ATM stealing incident.

¶4Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused was arrested on 16.03.2024, and since then he has been languishing in jail hazot for last 46 days and that he is innocent and no way involved with the offence alleged in the FIR, and therefore, it is contended to allow this petition.

¶5On the other hand Mr. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor by producing the case diary before this Court submits that the I.O. has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the accused and that the investigation is still going on and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition.

¶6Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the case diary with the assistance of learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶7Perusal of the case diary reveals that the I.O. has collected sufficient Page No.# 3/3 incriminating materials in support of the allegation made in the FIR. Further it appears that the investigation is still going on and the co-accused are yet to be arrested. And as such, enlarging the accused, at this stage, will hamper the investigation.

¶8In view of above, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the privilege of bail can be extended to the accused.

¶9Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

¶10The case diary be returned.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010087692024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1273/2024 NURUDDIN KHAN S/O RABI KHAN R/O VILL- BHAUKAMARI, P.S. AND DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N J DUTTA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN