SARALA MALAKAR v. C.B.I., A.C.B, GUWAHATI
Court: Gauhati High Court
Bench: HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN
Judgment date:
Case summary
Gauhati High Court judgment dated 2020-12-22. SARALA MALAKAR v. C.B.I., A.C.B, GUWAHATI. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
Page No. # 1/2 GAHC010173552020 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/3491/2020 SARALA MALAKAR W/O HEMANTA MALAKAR, D/O MADAN MALAKAR, R/O VILL- PUSPAKPUR, WARD NO. 10, NALBARI TOWN, P. O. -MILANPUR, P. S. - NALBARI, DIST-NALBARI (ASSAM), PIN-781337 VERSUS C. B. I. , A. C. B, GUWAHATI REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S C PANDIT Advocate for the Respondent : SPL. PP, C. B. I. BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN ORDER 22. 12. 2020 By this pre-arrest bail application under Section 438 CrPC, petitioner, namely, Smt Sarala Malakar, has sought for pre-arrest bail, in the event of his arrest in connection with CBI ACB Case No. 0172020A0001 [R. C. 1(A)/2020], under Sections 120B, read with Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC and under Section 13(2), read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (As amended in 2018).
Heard Mr S C Pandit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr S C Keyal, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI. Page No. # 2/2 Also perused the record and the Case Diary. On the basis of the Case Diary and the materials collected so far, Mr Keyal has submitted that the petitioner, by swearing as an widow in MAC Case No. 44 of 2017, has obtained an award of Rs. 6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lacs Fifty Thousand Only), whereas, her husband is still alive and such a case depicts a clear case of fraud on the part of the petitioner and the petitioner is not entitled to the privilege of pre-arrest bail. The petitioner has refuted the contention raised by the respondent, and simply stated that she signed blank papers to counsels, with a view to draw benefit under the Government Scheme, which is not maintainable.
In view of the severity of the allegation and the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged offence, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail Application is hereby rejected. Return the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.