Aminul Haque v. The State of Assam

ORDER

27.05.2024 Heard Mr. N. Ahmed, learned counsel for the accused and also heard Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent. Page No.# 2/3

¶2This application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is preferred by accused, namely, Aminul Haque, who has been languishing in jail hazot since

10.05.2024, in connection with Patacharkuchi P.S. Case No.59/2024 under Section 420/379 IPC, for grant of bail.

¶3It is to be noted here that the above noted case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by Uday Deka, on 19.03.2024. The essence of allegation made in the aforesaid FIR is that on 08.12.2023, at about 11/12 p.m., he has withdrawn money from the SBI ATM situated at Sarupeta, then three unknown persons asked him that one option has displayed in the ATM, then he again put his ATM in the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 Thereafter, on 11.12.2023, he came to know that a sum of Rs.41,000/- were withdrawn from his account, then through his YONO App, he checked his statement and came to know that someone has withdrawn money from the SBI ATM situated at Bhawanipur and then he got to know that the ATM, which was with him belonged to one Bhabesh Muchahari and therefore, he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 photos, 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 shown arrested here in this case on 10.05.2024 and for last 17 days he has been languishing in jail hazot. Further, Mr. Ahmed submits that he was arrested earlier in connection with PRC Case No.301/2023 on the strength of non-bailable warrant of arrest issued against him by the learned Trial Court and that the accused is innocent and no way involved with the offence alleged in the FIR and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition.

¶5On the other hand, Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, has produced the case diary before this Court and submits that the I.O. has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the accused and the investigation is going on and therefore, Mr. Lahkar has opposed the petition.

¶6Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully Page No.# 3/3 gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the case diary with the assistance of Mr. Lahkar, learned Additional P.P.

¶7It case diary indicates that the I.O. has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the present accused. The investigation, so far as the present accused is concerned, is going on and enlarging him on bail at this stage will hamper the investigation and therefore, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the privilege of bail can be extended to the accused and accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. Case diary be returned.

¶8In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010101312024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1457/2024 AMINUL HAQUE R/O VIL- BHAUKAMARI P.S. AND DIST. BARPETA ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. N J DUTTA Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN