Sanjib Kumar Nath v. The State of Assam

ORDER

07.11.2023 Heard Mr. A. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. K.K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

¶2Apprehending arrest in connection with Bhangagarh P.S. Case No. 238/2023, under Section 420 of the IPC, this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is preferred by applicant namely, Page No.# 2/3 Sanjib Kumar Nath for grant of pre-arrest bail.

¶3The said case has been registered on the basis of one F.I.R. lodged by Superintendent of Gauhati Medical College Hospital [GMCH], on 15.08.2023. The essence of allegation made in the FIR is that one Santana Drugs, Rumi Drugs, Rekha Drugs and Radali Drugs/Pharmacy are creating a racket in GMCH by fooling the innocent patient and guardians.

¶4Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the pharmacist of Santana Drugs and he is no way involved with the offence alleged in the FIR and that the applicant is ready to cooperate with the investigating agency, and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition.

¶5On the other hand, Mr. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has produced the case diary before this court and submits that the name of the applicant is not mentioned in the FIR and that the allegation made in the FIR also fails to disclose any culpability of the offence, against the applicant, under Section 420 of the IPC.

¶6Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully perused the petition as well as the documents placed on the record and also perused the case diary with the assistance of learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶7Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and also having considered the nature of accusation and the punishment prescribed for the same, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the applicant seems to be unwarranted here in this case.

¶8Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the applicant, Page No.# 3/3 in connection with Bhangagarh P.S. Case No. 238/2023, under Section 420 of the IPC, the applicant shall be enlarged on pre-arrest bail on executing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- only, with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.

¶9The above privilege is, however, subject to the following conditions:

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required;

(ii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup [M] at Guwahati, without prior permission.

¶10In terms of above, this AB stands disposed of.

¶11The case diary be returned.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010243452023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/3626/2023 SANJIB KUMAR NATH S/O. TANKESWAR NATH, PERMANENT R/O. BAMUMJAR, P.O. ANDHERIGHAT, P.S. BHURANATH, DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM PRESENT ADDRESS RUPNAGAR, BYE LANE 27, BHANGAGARH, P.S. BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A SHARMA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN