Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 133 (GAU)

Kaustov Saikia v. State Of Assam

2020-02-05

RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. By these applications under Section 438 CrPC , the two petitioners, namely, Kaustov Saikia and Pranjal Khanikar, have sought for pre-arrest bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Moranhat P.S. Case No.95/2019, under Sections 120(B)/379/420/34 of the IPC , read with Section 53(1)(a) of the Assam Excise Amendment Act, 2018. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 3. As per the FIR filed by the officer-in-charge on duty of the Maranhat P.S. that on 13.09.2019, at about 1:30 A.M., they found one truck bearing Regn. No.AS02AC1593, loaded with 1000 cartoons of IMFL, carried to a unknown destination and while apprehending, the driver of the truck could not give proper reply regarding the name of person who sent the consignment and where the same were transporting. The driver of the truck divulged that the owner of the truck has followed them in a swift desire vehicle bearing Regn. No.AS03W7533, who send the consignment. 4. As the driver could not disclose the name of the persons who sent the consignment, the I.O. made an inquiry about the ownership of the vehicle as well as also the phone number given by the driver. The phone number was found to be fake. 5. On the other hand, it was found that the aforesaid swift desire vehicle was noticed by two constables on duty, which was little bit ahead of the aforesaid loaded truck, wherein four persons namely, Kaustov Saikia, Sagar Das, Pranjal Patangia and Rantu Borah was found at such odd hours of night. The constables on duty were asked as to the reasons for their stationing on the road, then one of the inmates of the vehicle simply went away to the side of the road. 6. In view of the testimony of those police constables on duty and subsequent finding by the I.O., the apparent complicity of accused/petitioner Kaustov Saikia and Sagar Das is made out. 7. Having regard to the materials on the case diary, the complicity of the petitioner Kaustov Saikia is made out and accordingly his bail prayer stands rejected. However, there being no such complicity of the accused/petitioner Pranjal Khanikar, his bail prayer is considered and accordingly the interim bail passed earlier so far as regards accused/petitioner Pranjal Khanikar, is hereby made absolute. Return back the case diary.