Lankeswar Debnath v. The State of Assam

PageoNo.#o1/3 GAHC010145042024 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oAB/1871/2024o LANKESWARoDEBNATHo S/OoDHIRENoDEBNATH,oR/OoVILL-oBHUTIAPARA,oP.S.-BASUGAON,oP.O.- BASUGAON,oDIST-oCHIRANG,oASSAM,oPIN-783370 VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMo REPRESENTEDoBYoTHEoPUBLICoPROSECUTOR,oASSAM AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oMR.oSoCoBISWAS,oMR.oAoKoDAS,MSoAoBORAH,MS.oUo NANDA,MSoAoDAS,MS.oKoLoRoYANTHANo AdvocateoforotheoRespondento:oPP,oASSAM,oo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ::kBEFOREk::k HON'BLEkMR.kJUSTICEkPARTHIVJYOTIkSAIKIA kOkkkRkkkDkkkEkkkR o

19.08.2024 o Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Das, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. Page No.# 2/3

¶2This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for anticipatory bail in respect of Kokrajhar P.S. Case No.144/2024 under Sections 392 of the IPC (corresponding to G.R. No.294/2024).

¶3The informant company was bringing an amount of ₹34,51,816/- from LICI, Kokrajhar to the Axis Bank at Tengapara, Kokrajhar. One officer named Prasenjit Roy, Chief Executive of the company was in that van. There was a gunman also. The vehicle/van was driven by another person. At the time of entering into the Axis Bank, some unknown persons in a motorcycle attacked them and snatched away the money from them. The gunman also fired at them, causing injury to one miscreant.

¶4The present petitioner is the owner of the van/vehicle used by the informant company for transferring cash. He gets monthly remuneration for renting the vehicle to the company.

¶5Now, the petitioner apprehends that he might also be arrest in the aforesaid case.

¶6Mr. Das has submitted that the case diary reveals incriminating materials against the present petitioner because the entire money has not been recovered yet and an amount of ₹3,000,00/- was recovered from the house of the petitioner. According to Mr. Das, in this case, custodial interrogation is necessary.

¶7I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.

¶8This Court is of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the present petitioner might be necessary for investigation of this case. Therefore, the pre-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner Sri Lankeswar Debnath is not found to be satisfactory and stands dismissed accordingly. Page No.# 3/3 Return the case diary.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant