MAIDUL ISLAM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM
Court: Gauhati High Court
Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR
Judgment date:
Case summary
Gauhati High Court judgment dated 2020-11-16. MAIDUL ISLAM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
Page No. # 1/2 GAHC010147022020 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2977/2020 MAIDUL ISLAM S/O RIYAZ UDDIN @ RIJAY UDDIN, R/O VILL. CHENIMARI, KAKORJULAH, P. O. JAGIROAD, P. S. JAGIROAD, DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM, PIN 782134 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MD. B ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR ORDER 16. 11. 2020 Heard Mr. B. Islam , learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. J. Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. By this application under Section 438 Cr. P. C. , the petitioner, namely, Maidul Islam has prayed for pre-arrest bail apprehending arrest in connection with Dispur P. S. Case No. 2176/2020 under Sections 341/324/307/392/365/34 of the IPC (Corresponding to G. R. Case No. 11061/2020). Page No. # 2/2 The Case diary, as called for, is placed before the Court. Mr. B.
Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case with a motive to take revenge an old grudge on him and that he had not even any knowledge about such incident. Mr. N. J. Dutta, learned Addl. PP, submits that the case diary reveals that the informant by an affidavit has attributed the alleged occurrence to apparent misunderstanding and he filed the F. I. R. on the investigation of other person. The F. I. R. reveals the allegation that on 26. 09. 2020 at about 3. 30 a. m. , when the informant’s two employees were returning after collecting proceed of fish selling at Guwahati, they attacked them by sharp weapons and tried to kill them at Khanapara and snatched away money, goods and key of their car. On scrutiny of the case diary including the statement of one Safiqul Islam recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.
C, this Court is of the prima facie view that there is some scope to attribute the petitioner’s complicity in the commission of the alleged offences to a misunderstanding. Therefore, it is felt that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation may not be warranted in the backdrop of evidence so far collected in the case. Therefore, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the petitioner, named above, shall be released on pre-arrest 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 from today; and (ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of.
Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Source: Gauhati High Court. Archive: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.