Ramjan Ali v. The State of Assam

ORDER

05.08.2024

Heard Mr. A. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. N. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, State of Assam.

¶2By this application under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [CrPC], the petitioner viz. Ramjan Ali has approached this Court seeking the benefit of pre-arrest bail, apprehending his arrest, in connection with Gorchuk Police Station Case no. 80/2024, registered for offences punishable under Sections 461/380, Indian Penal Code [IPC].

¶3The First Information Report [FIR] was lodged on behalf of M/s Ronak Enterprise. As Page No.# 2/3 per the FIR lodged on 13.03.2024, M/s Ronak Enterprise has a godown which is located at Pub Boragaon, Gorchuk, Guwahati. As an incident of theft took place on 13.03.2024 in the said godown, on being checked, [i] E-rickshaw Batteries; [ii] E-rickshaw Chargers; and [iii] E-rickshaw Parts; were found stolen from the godown. At around 07-00 a.m. on 13.03.2024, staff of Ms. Ronak Enterprise discovered that the godown had been forcibly entered into by breaking its lock. The CCTV installed at the godown premises was found in broken condition and the DVR box was found stolen.

¶4Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a businessman who runs a hardware shop at Village – Bhakatgaon, Police Station – Raha and he has obtained a licence from the jurisdictional Monipurtup Gaon Panchayat to run his business. He has submitted that the petitioner had purchased few of the items which were, later on, found allegedly stolen from the godown, mentioned in the FIR. Mr. Sharma has further submitted that a co-accused, Emran Alom who was suspected to be involved in the theft case, has already been extended the benefit of pre-arrest bail by an Order dated

31.05.2024 passed in AB no. 1406/2024.

¶5Ms. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor who has received the case diary, has submitted on the basis of the materials collected during the course of the investigation carried out so far, available in the case diary, that the petitioner is found to be involved in the act of theft as a number of articles stolen from the godown of M/s Ronak Enterprise were recovered from the house of the petitioner.

¶6I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials on record including the materials available in the case diary.

¶7It has emerged from the Search & Seizure List, M.R. no. 67/2024 that on search of the house of the petitioner on 20.03.2024, a number of articles namely, [i] East Man Mitra Leed Acid 3 W Charge – 1 no.; [ii] East Man Battery EM16024ER – 1 no.; [iii] East Man Battery EM150ER – 1 no.; [iv] East Man Battery EM135012 ER – 10 nos.; [v] East Man Battery EM120 ER – 28 nos.; and [vi] East Man Battery EM1006ER – 2 nos.; were recovered in presence of Page No.# 3/3 witnesses and those seized articles were identified by the representative of M/s Ronak Enterprise as some of the articles, found stolen from the godown at Pub Boragaon, Gorchuk, Guwahati on 13.03.2024.

¶8The submissions of Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner should be considered vis-à-vis the benefit extended to a co-accused, Eman Alom on parity is considered and upon consideration, the same is found not acceptable on the ground that the co-accused, Eman Alom was extended the benefit of pre-arrest bail as no stolen articles were found to be in custody and possession of the said co-accused. On the other hand, a number of articles, found stolen from the godown of M/s Ronak Enterprise, have been recovered from the house of the present petitioner. As such, the case of the petitioner is not found similarly situated as like the co-accused, Eman Alom and as such, the contention that the petitioner can also be extended the benefit of pre-arrest bail under Section 438, CrPC on parity is not found maintainable.

¶9A number of stolen articles have been recovered from the custody and possession of the petitioner and the articles stone are of such description and brand that one cannot purchase those without a valid receipt and without paying receipt. The petitioner has not been able to place any valid receipt against his alleged purchase.

¶10Having considered the materials available in the case diary as well as in the records of the case, it its entirety, this Court finds that the case in hand is not fit one where the privilege of pre-arrest bail under Section 438, CrPC can be extended to the petitioner as the petitioner is found prima facie involved in the act of theft in the godown of M/s Ronak Enterprise on

13.03.2024. Accordingly, the present application on being found devoid of merits, stands rejected.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010140762024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1876/2024 RAMJAN ALI S/O LATE HAFIZUDDIN, R/O BHAKATGAON, P.S.-RAHA, MOUZA -BARAPUKA, DIST - NAGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A SHARMA, MR I AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY