Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 438 (GAU)

Gautam Barua v. State Of Assam

2020-04-02

AJAI LAMBA

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Sri Gautam Barua has filed this application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Special Vigilance Cell Police Station Case No.09/2017, under Sections 120(B)/468/471/406/409/420 IPC read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The Court proceedings have been conducted by means of creating a Virtual Court with the help of technology, so as to maintain distance between the staff, Advocates and the Presiding Judge. 3. I have heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. K. P. Pathak, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. N. J. Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent. 4. I have taken notice of the fact that allegedly the applicant was working as Chairman, Assam Building and Other Workers Welfare Board. The FIR is based on an enquiry report, which is exhaustive in nature giving explicit details. The incident relates to 2016. Enquiry report is dated 07.11.2017. 5. Alarming facts of this case are that the applicant knew that he is wanted as an accused, and therefore, was required to join investigation. The applicant applied for anticipatory bail vide AB No.2645/2017, which was dismissed vide order dated 08.12.2017. Despite the application being dismissed, applicant did not surrender. House of the applicant was searched on 27.02.2018 and some seizures were made. Subsequently, one after the other notice was served under Section 41(A) of Cr.P.C. in the year 2018 requiring the applicant to join investigation. The applicant, however did not appear before the investigating agency. Proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. were initiated. House in which the applicant had been living was attached. A writ petition was filed in this Court. In the course of the proceedings in the writ, the Court questioned as regard the stand of the applicant to surrender. On 17.02.2020, the Court was given to understand that the applicant would surrender within 10 days. In the meantime, however, the applicant was arrested on 24.02.2020 in Delhi. 6. This is a classic case in which the facts make it evident that the applicant has been evading the process of law, knowingly and intentionally, so much so the applicant was declared as absconder. 7. Be that as it may, Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. K. P. Pathak, Advocate for the applicant states that the applicant is in bad health. Mr. 7. Be that as it may, Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. K. P. Pathak, Advocate for the applicant states that the applicant is in bad health. Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate has impressed upon the Court that for the period from 2018 till 2020, the applicant intermittently was under medical attention in Delhi. Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate has pointed out that the applicant is in jail dispensary where qualitative treatment cannot be given. 8. Considering the fact that the applicant has been evading the process of law, no ground for grant of bail is made out. There is serious apprehension that the applicant shall abscond. However, health of the applicant is a matter of concern, even though there might be serious accusation against the applicant of indulging misappropriation of public money in the sum of Rs.121 crores. 9. Under the circumstances, I direct that let the applicant be examined by a medical specialist in jail. In case the applicant is required to be given treatment in Government Medical Hospital, necessary steps be taken by the jail authorities. With these observations, the application is dismissed. 10. Let a copy of the order be provided under the signatures of the Court Master.