Gauhati High Court
Faziruddin Ahmed And 2 Ors vs The State Of Assam on 21 November, 2019
Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010266222019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB 3852/2019
1:FAZIRUDDIN AHMED AND 2 ORS.
S/O LATE HABIBOR RAHMAN, R/O VILL-HERAJANI, P.S.-HAJO, DIST-
KAMRUP, ASSAM
2: SAFIKUR RAHMAN
S/O LATE HABIBOR RAHMAN
R/O VILL-HERAJANI
P.S.-HAJO
DIST-KAMRUP
ASSAM
3: TAHIDUR RAHMAN
S/O LATE HABIBOR RAHMAN
R/O VILL-HERAJANI
P.S.-HAJO
DIST-KAMRUP
ASSA
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S ISLAM
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
Page No.# 2/2
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
Date : 21-11-2019 Heard Shri S. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioners, namely, (1) Faziruddin Ahmed, (2) Safikur Rahman and (2) Tahidur Rahman, who have filed this application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. praying for grant of pre-arrest bail in connection with Hajo P.S. Case No. 893/2019 registered under Sections 420/406/325/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Shri Islam, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the allegations are highly exaggerated and the dispute otherwise is civil in nature.
On the other hand, Shri R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, by producing the Case Diary, has submitted that the injury caused to the son of the informant was grievous and there is direct implication against the petitioner No. 2- Safikur Rahman.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present application is allowed so far as the petitioner No. 1- Faziruddin Ahmed and petitioner No. 3- Tahidur Rahman are concerned. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner Nos. 1 & 3, named above, in connection with the aforesaid case, they shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only each with a surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. It is further provided that the petitioner Nos. 1 & 3 shall appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 29.11.2019 to have their statements recorded and shall continue to render full co-operation in the investigation and shall not indulge themselves in any activities which are detrimental to the investigation.
The prayer for Anticipatory Bail for the petitioner No. 2 is rejected at this stage.
The anticipatory bail application is, accordingly, disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant