Pranab Das v. The State of Assam

ORDER

03.10.2023

Heard Mr. P. Das, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

¶2Apprehending arrest in connection with the Basistha P.S. Case No. 421/2023, under Sections 120[B]/419/420/468/471 of the IPC, this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is preferred by applicants namely, Sri Pranab Das for grant of pre-arrest bail.

¶3The aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of one F.I.R., lodged Page No.# 2/3 by one Binanda Nath of AIR TRANSPORT CORPORATION, Beltola, Guwahati on 05.07.2023. The essence of allegations made in the FIR is that the applicant had fraudulently executed a false Power of Attorney, registered vide SL No. 8407, Deed No. 1524, before the Sub-Register, Kamrup, Guwahati for a plot of land measuring 3 Bighas 3 Kathas 1.09 Lecha, covered by Dag No. 2755, 2756, 2757 and Patta No. 237 of Revenue Village No.1, Maidamgaon, which is being owned by M/s AIR TRANSPORT CORPORATION, by forging the signature and thumb impression of Sudhir Goyal.

¶4Mr. P. Das, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has received notice under Section 160 of the Cr.P.C. and thereafter he has appeared before the IO and given his statement and that by profession he is an Advocate Clerk and his role in limited to carrying out the direction of Advocate and that he is no way involved with the offence alleged in the FIR. Mr. Das further submits that despite his appearance before the IO and giving his statement, he has received notice under Section 41[a] of the Cr.P.C. and he has apprehension that in the event of his appearance before the IO, he may be arrested and that his custodial interrogation may not be required in the interest of investigation and that he is ready to cooperate with the investigating agency and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition.

¶5On the other hand, by producing the Case Diary before this Court, Mr. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that though the applicant has appeared before the IO, on different occasions, yet, he has not been cooperating with the investigating agency and given contradictory version and attempting to mislead the investigating agency. Mr. Das further submits that the IO has collected sufficient materials against the applicant and that his custodial interrogation is very much necessary to unearth the conspiracy and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition.

¶6Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the Case Diary produced before this Court with the assistance of learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶7The case diary indicates that the IO has collected sufficient incriminating materials against both the applicants and it also appears that the investigation is in crucial Page No.# 3/3 stage and extending the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the applicants, at this stage, will misdirect the investigation. However, it is a fact that the applicant has appeared before the IO, on different occasions. But, it also appears that he has given contradictory statements.

¶8Having regards to above and also having regards to the nature and gravity of the offence and the punishment prescribed for the same this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the privilege of pre-arrest bail can be extended to the applicant and therefore, the same stands dismissed.

¶9Case diary be returned.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010219862023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/3376/2023 PRANAB DAS S/O LT. N. AHMED R/O 1 DHIRENPARA ITANAGAR, P.S. FATASIL AMBARI, GUWAHATI-25, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN