Kudrat Ali and 6 Ors v. The State of Assam

O R D E R

05.01.2024 Heard Mr. NK Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.

¶2The petitioners, namely, Kudrat Ali, Idrish Ali, Zakir Hussain, Maqbul Hussain, Amir Hamza, Mubarak Ali and Mukshidul Hussain have approached this court for the second time praying for grant of pre arrest bail, who are apprehending Page No.# 3/4 arrest in connection with Samaguri PS case No. 249/2023 under Section 147/341/326/307/392 IPC added Section 302 IPC.

¶3This court after perusal of the case diary rejected such prayer for the petitioner for grant of pre arrest bail under its order dated 12.10.2023 passed in AB 3365/2023, after finding that sufficient incriminating materials are available against the petitioners in the case diary.

¶4Under its order dated 04.12.2023, this court had again called for the case diary. Accordingly, the case diary has been produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecution

¶5It is argued by Mr. NK Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioners that since long there has been civil dispute between the families of the informant and the petitioners herein and earlier also there were fight between the parties wherein the petitioner got injured and criminal cases are pending for trial.

¶6From the case diary, it is revealed that though FIR was registered under Section 147/341/326/307/392 IPC subsequently one injured victim namely Jainal Abedin expired during treatment. Also perused the post-mortem report. This court after perusal of the material available on record and after finding sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioners more particularly considering the eye witnessess' account rejected the prayer of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. It is found that the petitioners, namely Idrish Ali and Zakir Hussain inflicted the major assault and other petitioners were part of the attacking team and assisted the said Idrish Ali and Zakir Hussain. Nothing has been brought on record by the petitioners to take a different view in this second bail application from the views taken by this court in its order dated 12.10.2013.

¶7So far relating to the existence of continuous dispute between the parties, this court is of the opinion that in view of existence of sufficient materials as discussed hereinabove the earlier fight between the parties and pendency of Page No.# 4/4 criminal case between the parties cannot be treated as a new ground to grant privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶8That being the position, the prayer of bail for the petitioners stands rejected. However, while parting with the record, it is made clear that the observations made in this order is for the purpose of consideration of the prayer of bail only and the same should not be treated as affirmation of merit of the prosecution case.

¶9With the aforesaid determination and observations, this bail application stands dismissed.

¶10Case diary be returned back to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010269062023 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oAB/4075/2023o KUDRAToALIoANDo6oORSo S/OoLATEoISMAILoALIo R/OoVILL-oBHOGAMUR,o P.S.oSAMAGURIo DIST.oNAGAON,oASSAM 2:oIDRISHoALI oS/OoLATEoISMAILoALIo R/OoVILL-oBHOGAMUR o P.S.oSAMAGURIo DIST.oNAGAON oASSAM 3:oZAKIRoHUSSAIN oS/OoIDRISHoALIo R/OoVILL-oBHOGAMUR o P.S.oSAMAGURIo DIST.oNAGAON oASSAM 4:oMAQBULoHUSSAIN oS/OoIDRISHoALIo R/OoVILL-oBHOGAMUR o P.S.oSAMAGURIo DIST.oNAGAON oASSAM 5:oAMIRoHAMZA oS/OoIDRISHoALIo R/OoVILL-oBHOGAMUR o Page No.# 2/4 P.S. SAMAGURI DIST. NAGAON ASSAM 6: MUBARAK ALI S/O IDRISH ALI R/O VILL- BHOGAMUR P.S. SAMAGURI DIST. NAGAON ASSAM 7: MUKSHIDUL HUSSAIN S/O IDRISH ALI R/O VILL- BHOGAMUR P.S. SAMAGURI DIST. NAGAON ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N K KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY