- Court
- High Court of Gauhati
- Decided
- 10 October 2023
- Bench
- Robin Phukan
- Case no.
- Bail Appln. 3388/2023
Judgment
ORDER
10.10.2023
Heard Mr. R.P. Sarmah, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. T. Som, learned counsel for the accused; Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent; and Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the informant.
¶2This petition, under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is preferred by accused, namely Sudarshan Medhi, who has been languishing in jail in connection with Page No.# 2/3 Hatigaon P.S. Case No. 264/2023, under Sections 406/419/420 of the IPC, for granting bail.
¶3It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of a FIR lodged by one Aditya Haralalka of Hudson Foods Private Limited on 09.08.2023. The essence of allegation made in the FIR is that one Nilank Kashyap and Dipshikha Choudhury, who are the In-Charge of Godown of Hudson Foods Private Limited at Sonapur, along with some other staff, had misappropriated 89.90 MT of poultry feed.
¶4Mr. Sarmah, learned Senior Counsel submits that the accused was arrested on 21.08.2023, and since then he has been languishing in jail hazot for last 51 days and that the name of the accused finds no mention in the FIR and that the offences alleged in the FIR, are not at all applicable in the case of the accused. Mr. Sarmah further submits that the wife of the accused is in the advance stage of pregnancy and there is none in his house, to look after her. Mr. Sarmah also submits that the case is related to documents, which have already been seized by the police and therefore, the custodial detention of the accused may not be required in the interest of investigation and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition.
¶5On the other hand, Mr. Borthakur, learned Addl. P.P. submits that the case diary is not available with him, as it is lying in the Court No. 18. Mr. Borthakur further submits that he has objection in releasing the accused on bail, as sufficient incriminating materials are there in the case diary, which has been reflected in the order of the earlier bail application, dated 11.09.2023, and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition.
¶6Whereas, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the informant also submits that he has serious objection if the accused is released on bail Page No.# 3/3 considering the merit of the case. Mr. Bhattacharjee further submits that the Court may, however, consider the period of detention.
¶7Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both parties, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the materials placed on record.
¶8It appears that the accused was arrested on 21.08.2023, and since then he has been languishing in the jail hajot for last 51 days. Further it appears that since the rejection of earlier bail application, more than one month has elapsed and the IO got sufficient time for investigation of the case. Also it appears from the Annexure – 4 [Page No. 32] that the wife of the accused is in the advantage of pregnancy and it is stated that there is none in his house to look after her. Also, it appears that relevant documents have already been seized by the police.
¶9Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that further custodial detention of the accused is not required, in the interest of investigation and therefore, this Court is inclined to allow this petition.
¶10Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- only, with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup [M] at Guwahati, the accused be enlarged on bail.
¶11In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Case details
Parties and counsel
Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010210632023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3388/2023 SUDARSHAN MEDHI S/O PRAMOD MEDHI VILL- BOHORI P.S. TARABARI DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. T SOM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
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.