- Court
- High Court of Gauhati
- Decided
- 16 July 2024
- Bench
- S. Justice Mitali Thakuria
- Case no.
- AB 1552/2024
Judgment
ORDER
17.07.2024 Heard Mr. S. M. Abdullah P., learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.
This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying for grant of pre-arrest bail the accused/petitioner, who is apprehending arrest in connection with Samaguri Police Station Case No. 165/2024, under Section 120(B) of IPC read with Section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act. The Case Diary has been received and I have perused the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Abdullah P., submits that the petitioner is not involved in the alleged offence. The police are seeking him and contacting him by telephone solely because he is a friend of the main accused, namely Safiruddin, who was arrested in connection with the case. Accordingly, he argues that there is an apprehension of arrest, and therefore, he has filed the present anticipatory bail application seeking interim pre-arrest bail. On the other hand, Mr. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that the Case Diary reveals a dispute between the main accused and his son. The son informed the police about his father's possession of arms, leading to the filing of an FIR by the police officer. However, there is no mention whatsoever of the involvement of the accused/petitioner, nor is there any indication in the IO's notes that there is an apprehension of arrest of the present petitioner in connection with this case. Accordingly, he submits that this Page No.# 3/3 is not a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner at this stage. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for both sides and also considering the materials available in the case diary, it is seen that there is no ground for apprehension of arrest of the accused/petitioner in connection with this case, and accordingly, I do not find any ground to pass any order on interim pre-arrest bail. With above observation, this anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Case details
Parties and counsel
PageoNo.#o1/3 GAHC010120022024 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oAB/1552/2024o ABULoKALAMo S/OoSALEMUDDINo R/OoPAGHAL,oMUWAMARIo P.S.oSAMAGURIo DIST.oNAGAON,oASSAM VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMo REPoBYoTHEoPP,oASSAM AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oMRoSoMoABDULLAHoPo AdvocateoforotheoRespondento:oPP,oASSAMoo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
Source: High Court of Gauhati, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.