Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 225 (GAU)

Md. Johirul Islam v. State of Assam

2022-03-04

MANISH CHOUDHURY

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. A. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State of Assam. 2. By this application under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [CrPC], the petitioner viz. Md. Johirul Islam has approached this Court seeking the benefit of pre-arrest bail, apprehending his arrest, in connection with Sukchar Police Station Case No. 218/2021 registered for offences punishable under Sections 120B/341/326/307/379/34, Indian Penal Code [IPC]. 3. The informant has lodged the First Information Report [FIR] before the Officer InCharge, Sukchar Police Station on 13.11.2021 wherein the informant has named 7 [seven] persons as accused. As per the FIR, at about 06-30 p.m. on 12.11.2021, the son-in-law of the informant, Tahidur Rahman went to the house of Anowar Hussain, a resident of the same village, to look for a labourer. Then, Anowar Hussain called the petitioner i.e. Johirul Islam to be engaged as such labourer. Thereafter, Tahidur Rahman and the petitioner were proceeding from the house of Anowar Hussain to the house of Tahidur Rahman. When Tahidur Rahman and the petitioner were so proceeding, 7 [seven] nos. of accused persons, named in the FIR, intercepted and surrounded them on the road. At first, the accused no. 1 and accused no. 2 grabbed Tahidur Rahman and then, the accused no. 3 stabbed Tahidur Rahman from backside by a dagger in order to kill him. As a result, Tahidur Rahman was seriously injured. It has been alleged that the other accused persons took away an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- from the pocket of Tahidur Rahman. As a result of the attack, Tahidur Rahman fell down on the road losing consciousness. The local people having got the information, reached at the place of incident and took Tahidur Rahman to Hatsingimari Hospital at first. Finding the condition of Tahidur Rahman serious, he was thereafter, taken to the Guwahati Medical College and Hospital. It is stated that at the time of lodging the FIR, Tahidur Rahman was undergoing medical treatment in a serious condition. 4. Mr. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the FIR, the informant has named 7 [seven] nos. of persons as accused and the name of the petitioner has not figured in the FIR. The version in the FIR goes to show that the petitioner was accompanying the injured and he was not an assailant. 5. Mr. 4. Mr. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the FIR, the informant has named 7 [seven] nos. of persons as accused and the name of the petitioner has not figured in the FIR. The version in the FIR goes to show that the petitioner was accompanying the injured and he was not an assailant. 5. Mr. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the victim had been assaulted by a number of accused persons including the petitioner. As a result of such assault, the victim Tohidur Rahman sustained grievous injuries on his person. 6. I have gone through the materials available in the case diary collected during the course of investigation carried out so far. The medical report available in the case dairy has reported that the victim Tohidur Rahman sustained grievous injuries on his person, as a result of the assault on him on 12.11.2021. Because of the injuries sustained, the victim had to be treated as an indoor patient in the hospital for about 7 [seven] days. In the statement of the victim recorded on 21.11.2021, the victim had implicated a number of persons including the petitioner. He had specifically implicated the petitioner in the act of assault in that the petitioner grabbed the victim from behind and restrained the victim. In the process, the other accused persons assaulted the victim. The informant did not appear to be an eye-witness to the incident. As such, the fact that the informant did not name the petitioner in the FIR stands eclipsed by the fact that the victim had implicated the petitioner. 7. In view of such availability of sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner in the case dairy, this Court of the considered view that this is not a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail under Section 438, CrPC to the petitioner. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected.