Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010064782024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/807/2024
SAKIR AHMED
S/O LATE LUTFULLA AHMED
R/O FAKIRTOLA
KAMRUP, PIN-781102
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S H SIKDAR
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
28.03.2024
Heard Mr. N.N. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard
Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State respondent.
2. This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
Page No.# 2/3
1973 for granting pre-arrest bail to the accused petitioner, namely, i.e. Sakir
Ahmed, who is appending arrest, in connection with Chandmari P.S. Case No. 42
of 2024, registered under Section 120(B)/406/419/468/420 of the IPC.
3. The case of the prosecution is that an FIR was lodged on 19.02.2024
alleging inter-alia that two accused persons, namely, Sakir Ahmed and Ruhul
Amin had convinced the informant to make a payment of Rs. 65,000/- for
purchase of a TVS NTorq Scooty. It is further alleged that along with the
aforesaid two accused persons there are more accused involved, out of which
one of them is the petitioner.
4. Mr. N.N. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been roped in unnecessarily. He further submits that the
petitioner has no role to play in the offence alleged.
5. Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand strongly opposes
the prayer for bail. He further submits that the investigation has substantially
progressed and the statements of the witnesses have been recorded from
where, it appears that the adverse materials collected at this stage are primarily
against the main accused, who is Ashish Hussain.
6. I have heard the submissions made at the Bar and I have perused the
materials available on record.
7. It appears that there are no adverse materials at this stage available
against the petitioner. Considering the same, this Court is of the considered view
that custodial interrogation may not be justified for the ongoing investigation.
8. Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner
named above, shall be released on pre-arrest bail in connection with the above
noted case on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 30,000/- each with a suitable surety of
Page No.# 3/3
like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject of course to
conditions:-
(i) the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days
th
failing which failing which from the 16 day, the pre-arrest bail shall have no
force;
(ii) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or
promise to the informant or to any other persons who may be acquainted with
the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from deposing against the
petitioners in the pending trial against them; and,
(iii) the petitioner shall refrain from committing any offence similar to that with
which he has been accused of in the instant case.
9. With the above observation, this anticipatory bail application disposed of.
Send back the case diary.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant