Tafikul Rahman @ Babu v. The State of Assam

ORDER

24.06.2024

¶1Heard Mr. S. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent. Page No.# 2/4

¶2This application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Tafikul Rahman @ Babu, who is detained behind the bars since 29.04.2024(for last 56 days), in connection with Geetanagar P.S. Case No. 321/2023, under Section 420/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶3The gist of accusation in this case is that on 07.12.2023, one Sri Bibek Chetry had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of Geetanagar Police Station, inter alia, alleging that one of the friend of the first informant, namely, Tikendrajit Boro had introduced him to one Rajesh Nath@ Rishi informing him that if he gives his documents to the said Rajesh Nath his agency will purchase a bike in his name by paying the down payment of Rs. 30,000/- and also by paying the EMI in three months.

¶4Accordingly, the informant gave his Aadhaar Card, PAN Card and Bank documents, it is also alleged in the FIR that thereafter, the said Rajesh Nath and his accomplice purchased the bike on 25th October, by paying the down payment of Rs. 50,000/- and that along with the bike and only Rs. 3,000/- to the first informant.

¶5It is also alleged that neither the bike was handed over nor EMI was paid against the said loan and when the first informant contact the said Rajesh Nath, he was found to be switch off.

¶6Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that nothing was seized from the possession of the present petitioner and he is not involved in the offence alleged in the said FIR.

¶7It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the offence involved in this case are under Section 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code, for which the maximum statutory period for detention is 60 days only and Page No.# 3/4 the above-named petitioner has already completed 56 days behind the bars.

¶8It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the meanwhile, Rajesh Nath@ Rishi, who was also apprehended in connection with this case, has already been granted bail by the Trial Court.

¶9On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted that there are materials in the case diary against the petitioner and they are members of a racket, who in similar activity of duping the innocent poor people of their hard earned money.

¶10It is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that similar other cases were filed and the modus operandi of the offenders are to dupe the innocent persons and then purchase the bikes out of the loan amount procured in their name and thereafter, sell the said bikes to different parts of North Eastern States. He has submitted that the investigation of this case is still going on and some of the co-accused are yet to be arrested.

¶11I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and have perused the materials available on record, including the case diary of Geetanagar P.S. Case No. 321/2023. Though there are some materials against the present petitioner in the case diary, however, considering the fact, that one of the main accused of this case, namely, Rajesh Nath@ Rishi has already been granted bail. Moreover, considering the progress made in the investigation as well as the period of detention already undergone by the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that further custodial detention of the above-named petitioner may not be necessary if he co-operates in the investigation.

¶12In view of above, the above-named petitioner is hereby allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/-with a suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction Page No.# 4/4 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), Guwahati with conditions that:-

(i) the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation; and (ii) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to the informant or to any other persons who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Investigating Officer or to any Court.

¶13With the above observations, this bail application is hereby disposed of.

¶14Send back the case diary.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010103282024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1487/2024 TAFIKUL RAHMAN @ BABU S/O SOFI ALI R/O VILL- GHAHI MUSLIM GAON P.S. AND P.O. SOOTEYA DIST. SONITPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA