Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 475 (GAU)

Jaymoti Bharali v. State Of Assam

2020-05-12

M.R.PATHAK

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. S. Barman, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State. 2. This application under Section 439 Cr.PC has been filed by the petitioners, namely, 1. Jaymoti Bharali, 2. Dijen Deka, 3. Sri Anita Bharali, 4. Sri Upen Das, 5. Sri Nar Hari Mazumdar, 6. Sri Ram Majumdar and 7. Sri Prahlad Bharali, seeking bail in connection with Hajo P.S. Case No. 216/2020 registered under Sections 120(B)/325/302/427 of the IPC, wherein they were arrested on 06.03.2020 and since then, they are in custody. 3. From the FIR of the case, it is seen that when the husband of the informant on 05.03.2020 in the afternoon went to the house of Paresh Bharali, elder son of the petitioner No. 1 to receive his money that was payable by her said son, he was killed by the petitioners and their other associates injuring him severely on his person and that his dead body was found in the premises of said elder son of the petitioner No. 1. 4. Perused the case diary along with the post-mortem report of the deceased placed before the Court by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 5. The post-mortem report of the deceased, Hare Krishna Kalita, husband of the informant, reveals that he sustained multiple injuries of different size on his face, lacerated wound on his right ear contusion on his left frontal area of 5 x 3 cm, contusion of 6 x 5 cm on his left temporal area and contusion of 6 x 5 cm on his occipital area and his heart contained liquid and clotted blood. 6. As per the opinion of the doctor, as reflected in the post-mortem report, the death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries, where all the injuries were caused by blunt forced impact, which were ante-mortem and homicidal in nature. 7. From the perusal of the case diary, it is seen that the independent witnesses, eye witnesses and the neighbours of the petitioners implicated the accused persons in assaulting the husband of the informant and riding of his scooty over his body, while he was lying injured in the ground in the premises of the son of the petitioner No. 1 and, thereafter, destroying his said scooty. 8. Finding sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner Nos. 1. 8. Finding sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner Nos. 1. Jaymoti Bharali and 3. Sri Anita Bharali in said Hajo P.S. Case No. 216/2020, this Court is of the view that their bail prayer, though they are in custody since 06.03.2020, cannot be considered. Accordingly, this bail application of those two petitioner Nos. 1. Jaymoti Bharali and 3. Sri Anita Bharali in said Hajo P.S. Case No. 216/2020 stands rejected. 9. However, from the perusal of the case diary, it is also seen that excepting an independent witness, the rest of the independent witnesses did not implicate the petitioner Nos. 2. Dijen Deka, 4. Sri Upen Das, 5. Sri Nar Hari Mazumdar, 6. Sri Ram Majumdar and 7. Sri Prahlad Bharali. 10. Considering the above, this Court is of the view that their further custodial detentions are not warranted to investigate the said Hajo P.S. Case No. 216/2020. Therefore, this bail application of the petitioner Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 named above is accepted. 11. Accordingly, the petitioner Nos. 2. Dijen Deka, 4. Sri Upen Das, 5. Sri Nar Hari Mazumdar, 6. Sri Ram Majumdar and 7. Sri Prahlad Bharali, be released on bail in said Hajo P.S. Case No. 216/2020 on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 30,000/- each with 2 (two) local sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hajo, on conditions that they - (i) shall appear before the Investigating Officer of said Hajo P.S. Case No. 216/2020 as and when they are required for necessary investigation of the case; (ii) shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Hajo police station, without obtaining prior written permission from the concerned Investigating Officer of the case; (iii) shall not hamper with the investigation, or tamper with the evidence of the case and (iv) they 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer, failing which, the bail granted to them in the aforesaid Hajo Police Station case shall stand automatically vacated. 12. This bail application accordingly stands disposed of. 13. A true copy of this order shall be furnished by the concerned Court Master to the petitioners or to their authorized persons for their necessary use.