Mozaffar Rahaman v. The State of Assam

ORDER Date : 18.07.2024

¶1Heard Mr. H. R. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶2This application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, (1) Mozaffar Rahaman, (2) Zakir Hussain, (3) Mostafizur Monij, (4) Motiar Rahman, and (5) Alom Hussain who are apprehending their arrest in connection with South Salmara P. S. Case No. 105/2024, under Section 147/148/326/342/427/506 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶3The gist of the accusation in this case is that on 21.05.2024, one Ali Hussain Sarkar had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of South Salmara Police Station, Inter-Alia, alleging that on 19.05.2024, his son, namely, Page No.# 3/5 Rehan Alom Sarkar, aged about 14 years, informed him over telephone that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 had dragged him forcefully to their house and had assaulted him after tying his hands and legs with rope. As a result of assault, the son of the informant sustained grievous injuries on his person.

¶4The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on the earlier instance, when the case diary was called for and was available before this Court, it came to light that the victim has implicated only petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and made no implicating statement against the remaining petitioners.

¶5The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the allegations made in the FIR are not true. It is submitted that in fact the victim boy attempted to commit theft in the tank of the petitioner No.1 and when he was apprehended and police was informed, however, before the arrival of the police, the local public had assaulted the victim boy.

¶6On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary of South Salmara P. S. Case No.105/2024 and has submitted that in his statement, the victim boy has implicated the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 of having assaulted him. However, no implications are there against the remaining petitioners.

¶7The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also submitted that from the medical report of the victim, it appears that he suffered dislocation of finger joints and the injuries sustained by the victim is grievous in nature and he accordingly, opposed grant of bail to the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2.

¶8I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials available on record, including the case Page No.# 4/5 diary of South Salmara P. S. Case No.105/2024.

¶9On perusal of the case diary, it appears that there are sufficient incriminating material against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and hence, this Court is of considered opinion that they are not entitled to get the benefit of a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶10Accordingly, the prayer for bail of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 is hereby rejected.

¶11However, as regards other petitioners, i.e., petitioner Nos. 3) Mostafizur Monij, (4) Motiar Rahman, and (5) Alom Hussain, as there is no implicating materials in the case diary against them, the said petitioners, namely petitioner Nos. (3) Mostafizur Monij, (4) Motiar Rahman, and (5) Alom Hussain are hereby directed to appear before the Investigating Officer of South Salmara P. S. Case No.105/2024 within a period of 10 days from the date of this order and co-operate in the investigation. If they do so within the stipulated period of time, in the event of their arrest in connection with South South Salmara P. S. Case No.105/2024, the above-named petitioners i.e., petitioner Nos. (3) Mostafizur Monij, (4) Motiar Rahman, and (5) Alom Hussain) shall be allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only), each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority subject to the following conditions: i. That the petitioners shall co-operate in the investigation. ii. That the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such Page No.# 5/5 person from disclosing such facts of the case before the Investigating Officer.

¶12With above observation of this anticipatory bail application is hereby disposed of.

¶13Send back the case diary.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/5 GAHC010113442024 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oAB/1479/2024o MOZAFFARoRAHAMANo S/OoMOHAMMEDoALI,o VILLAGEoRAJABALAoBHALUKoKANDI,o POoPATAKATA,oPSoSOUTHoSALMARA,oDISToSOUTHoSALMARAo MANKACHAR,oASSAMo783127 2:oZAKIRoHUSSAIN oS/OoMOTIORoRAHMANo RESIDENToOFoVILLAGEoKOLABARI oPOoPATAKATA oPSoSOUTHoSALMARA oDISToSOUTHoSALMARAoMANKACHAR oASSAMo783127 3:oALOMoHUSSAIN oS/OoABDULoSALAM.o VILLAGEoRAJABALAoBHALUKoKANDI o POoPATAKATA oPSoSOUTHoSALMARA oDISToSOUTHoSALMARAoMANKACHAR oASSAMo783127 4:oMOTIARoRAHMAN oS/OoMOHAMMADoALI o VILLAGEoRAJABALAoBHALUKoKANDI o POoPATAKATA oPSoSOUTHoSALMARA oDISToSOUTHoSALMARAoMANKACHAR oASSAMo783127 5:oMOSTAFIZURoMONIJ Page No.# 2/5 S/O MOZAFFAR RAHMAN VILLAGE RAJABALA BHALUK KANDI PO PATAKATA PS SOUTH SALMARA DIST SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM 78312 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. SURAJIT DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA