Gafur Ch Das v. The State of Assam

ORDER

10.05.2024 Heard Mr. N. K. Murry, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. This application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, who has been languishing in jail hazot in connection with Howraghat P.S. Case No. 12/2024, under Sections 341/333/336/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code (GR Case No.71/2024). It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Murry, that present petitioner is the president of Puja Committee and on the day of the incident he was not present in the place of occurrence which is revealed from the FIR itself. He also submitted that the petitioner was not aware about the incident which took place in the puja campus nor he was directly involved in obstructing the police personal in doing their duty and thus, Sections 333/336 of IPC does not attract against the accused/petitioner. More so, the petitioner is behind the bar since 16.04.2024 and accordingly, considering the length of detention undergone by the accused/petitioner, he prays to enlarge the accused/petitioner on bail, as the I.O. has got sufficient time for his custodial interrogation. Further, the accused/petitioner is still ready and willing to co-operate the IO in further investigation, if requires. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Borthakur, has submitted that being the president of the Puja Committee, the Page No.# 3/4 accused/petitioner is well aware about the gambling going on in the puja campus, rather the gambling was continuing only as per his consent. However, he submits that considering the length of detention his prayer for bail may be considered. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for both sides, I have perused the FIR which reveals that at the time of the incident the petitioner was not present in the place of occurrence. Thus, considering the entire aspect of the case and further considering the length of detention already undergone by the accused/petitioner, I am of the view that the I.O. has got ample opportunity to interrogate the accused/petitioner in the custody and accordingly, further custodial interrogation of the accused/petitioner seems to be not necessary here in this case. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Diphu, Karbi Anglong, the accused/petitioner, namely, 1. Gafur Ch. Das, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:

(i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required;

(ii) that the petitioner 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 petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Page No.# 4/4 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Diphu, Karbi Anglong, without prior permission. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010091302024 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oBailoAppln./1334/2024o GAFURoCHoDASo S/OoMONINDRAoKR.oDAS,oR/OoRANGoRANGoCHARNI,oNO.o2,oP.O.- HOWRAGHAT,oP.S.-HOWRAGHAT,oDIST-oKARBIoANGLONG,oASSAM,oPINoNO. 782481 VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMo REPRESENTEDoBYoTHEoPUBLICoPROSECUTOR,oASSAM AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oMR.oNoKoMURRYo AdvocateoforotheoRespondento:oPP,oASSAMoo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA