Mukul Chandra Ray and Anr v. The State of Assam

ORDER Date : 31-07-2024

Heard Mr. N.J. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Page No.# 2/3 Assam.

¶2This application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, 1. Mr. Mukul Chandra Ray and 2. Nibash Roy, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Golakganj P.S. Case No. 58/2024 under Section 120(B)/379/186/353/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶3The gist of accusation in this case is that one Munna Sharma, Forester I of Chagolia Block Forest, Account Office had lodged an FIR on 20.03.2024, before the Officer-In-Charge of Chagolia Police Outpost, inter alia, alleging that on receipt of an information that some illegal transportation of sand and chip is taking place in Khathaltoli Ghat since long without valid documents. The informant along with the Forest staff went to Kaymari Part II area and found one Tata 407 truck and a tractor while sand being loaded in the said vehicles. When the informant sought for the documents, the driver of the said vehicle produced some challans and some discrepancies were found in the said challans and an altercation happened between the driver and the informant.

¶4It is alleged in the FIR that at that time, the occupants of the vehicle tried to attack the informant and his colleague with lathis etc.

¶5The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the allegations made in the FIR are not true.

¶6He has also submitted that on bare perusal of the FIR, it appears that the incident as alleged occurred on 08.03.2024, however, the FIR was lodged by the informant on 20.03.2024, i.e. about 12 days after the incident without any explanation for the delay in lodging of the FIR. Page No.# 3/3

¶7The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that both the petitioners are the driver of the vehicles which were seized in this case and they are innocent and they are ready to co-operate in the trial.

¶8I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection. The statement of the petitioners has been recorded. The petitioners have not violated any bail conditions. I have considered the submission that the petitioners are willing to cooperate with the remaining part of the investigation and to abide by any bail conditions if imposed upon them. The petitioners are local residents and they are not a flight risks.

¶9Considering all aspects and in view of my foregoing discussions, the interim order dated 28.06.2024 is hereby made absolute.

¶10In terms of the above observations, this Anticipatory Bail applications stands disposed of.

¶11Send back the Case Diary.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010131232024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1720/2024 MUKUL CHANDRA RAY AND ANR S/O ATUL RAY, R/O VILL- KAYMARI PART-2, P.O.-KAYMARI, P.S.- GOLAKGANJ, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783335 2: NIBASH ROY S/O AROJIT ROY R/O NEAR KAYMARI NEW MARKET KAYMARI PART-2 P.O.-KAYMARI P.S.-GOLAKGANJ DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-78333 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J KALITA, M BRAHMA,MR SOHAING Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND