ANUPAM SAIKIA @ JAN SAIKIA v. THE STATE OF ASSAM
Court: Gauhati High Court
Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR
Judgment date:
Case summary
Gauhati High Court judgment dated 2020-12-08. ANUPAM SAIKIA @ JAN SAIKIA v. THE STATE OF ASSAM. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
Page No. # 1/3 GAHC010162912020 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/3262/2020 ANUPAM SAIKIA @ JAN SAIKIA S/O LATE SONARAM SAIKIA, R/O BIBIJAN, WARD NO. 04, P. S. AND P. O. - TITABOR, DIST-JORHAT, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M BISWAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR ORDER Date : 08-12-2020 Heard Mr. M Biswas, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. NK Kalita, learned Addl. Public prosecutor for the State respondent. By this petition under Section 438 Cr. P. C. , the petitioner, namely, Anupam Saikia @ Jan Saikia has prayed for pre-arrest bail apprehending arrest in connection with Titabor Page No. # 2/3 PS Case No. 390/2020 under Sections 447/294/353/307/506/34 of the IPC read with Section 25 (1) (a) of Arms Act. Case diary is received. Mr.
M Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is a supplier of stone and presently he is executing a project for construction of hospital. Mr. Biswas further submits that the petitioner did not possess any pistol, as alleged. Mr. NK Kalita, learned Addl. P. P. submits that nothing is recovered from the possession of the present petitioner and the petitioner in fact fled away from the place of occurrence after rebuking one person, who was unknown to him. The allegation in the FIR is that on 04. 11. 2020, the petitioner along with another person entered the hospital premises in a vehicle and started screaming and yelling loudly and passed abusive comments and asked the address and occupation of one Sanjib Bhuyan, Covic-19 Co-ordinator and later on, fled away.
Upon hearing of both sides and consideration of the allegations and further, the evidence so far collected by the investigating officer till date, this Court is of the view that in the backdrop of facts, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary in the interest of the investigation. Therefore, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the petitioner, named above, shall be released on furnishing bail of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject, of course, to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 7 days; (ii) That the petitioner shall not hamper or tamper with the investigation in any manner; and (iii) That the petitioner 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
Return the case diary. Page No. # 3/3 The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Source: Gauhati High Court. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.