Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 132 (GAU)

Salim Ali v. State Of Assam

2022-02-11

MANISH CHOUDHURY

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. M.H. Laskar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. T. Mohammad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State of Assam. 2. By this application under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the petitioners viz. 1) Salim Ali and 2) Tajirul Islam have approached this Court seeking the benefit of pre-arrest bail, apprehending their arrest, in connection with Dispur Police Station Case No. 4085/2021 registered for offence punishable under Section 392, Indian Penal Code. 3. In the First Information Report [FIR] lodged on 11.11.2021, the informant has inter alia alleged that while his wife was coming from the market to their residential complex, 'Priya Tower' by riding a scooty, two unknown miscreants snatched her golden chain with locket from her neck. The informant has further stated that when his wife raised hue and cry at that moment, a water tanker vehicle which was coming from the opposite side, tried to stop the miscreants. Then, the miscreants leaving their motorcycle and mobile phones on the road, fled away from the scene. 4. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking benefit of pre-arrest bail projecting that on the day of the occurrence, the petitioners were coming from their own house by riding a motorcycle and an accident took place between the scooty of the informant's wife and the motorcycle of the petitioners in front of the residential complex, 'Priya Tower' at Radhanagar, Six Mile. After the accident, the wife of the informant started raising hue and cry and hearing commotion, some of the local people then, gathered at the spot and started assaulting the petitioners without knowing the actual facts. Their mobile phones and motorcycle were snatched away. They have further projected that one water tanker also knocked down the motorcycle of the petitioners. The petitioners had somehow, managed to escape from the place of occurrence to save their lives. 5. Mr. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor who has received the case diary, has submitted that during the investigation nothing incriminating, as on date has been collected against the two petitioners. The investigation is, however, still in progress. 6. I have perused the materials in the case diary. 5. Mr. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor who has received the case diary, has submitted that during the investigation nothing incriminating, as on date has been collected against the two petitioners. The investigation is, however, still in progress. 6. I have perused the materials in the case diary. No incriminating materials against the petitioners are found amongst the materials available therein, collected during the course of investigation carried out so far, to justify the petitioners' custodial interrogation as on date. Having gone through the contents of the FIR; the fact that the investigation is still in progress; and considering the projections made on behalf of the petitioners, I am of the considered view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners for the purpose of carrying out further investigation in the case is not necessary, and their release on pre-arrest bail, at this stage, is not likely to affect the further investigation of the case in any prejudicial manner, provided they extend their assistance and cooperation in the further investigation of the case. Thus, the benefit of prearrest bail under Section 438, CrPC can be extended to the petitioners. 7. Accordingly, it is provided, that in the event of arrest of the petitioners in connection with Dispur Police Station Case No. 4085/2021, they shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject to the conditions that : 1. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer of the case within a period of 7 (seven) days from today and shall cooperate with the investigation of the case; 2. The petitioners 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; and 3. The petitioners shall not hamper with the investigation or tamper with the evidence of the case. This application stands disposed of in the afore-mentioned terms.