Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Gauhati High Court

Riju Samanta vs The State Of Assam on 4 December, 2018

Author: Ajit Borthakur

Bench: Ajit Borthakur

                                                                                            Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010267682018




                                 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                        Case No. : AB 3765/2018

              1:RIJU SAMANTA
              S/O SRI GOBINDA CHANDRA SAMANTA, R/O DEWRAPARA PART II,
              AZARA, GUWAHATI, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM

              VERSUS

              1:THE STATE OF ASSAM
              REP. BY PP, ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner      : MR. A CHAUDHURY

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM




                                        BEFORE
                          HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR

                                                 ORDER

Date : 04-12-2018 Heard Mr. A Chaudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. N Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Assam.

This is an application, filed under Section 438 of the Cr.PC. seeking pre-arrest bail of the petitioner, namely, Sri Riju Samanta, in connection with Morigaon PS Case No. 107/2016 under Section 408 of the IPC.

Perused the petition as well as the annexures furnished therewith. Call for the case diary. List the matter on 8th of January, 2019. In the meanwhile, till the returnable date, in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be Page No.# 2/2 released on interim pre-arrest bail of Rs. 20,000/- with one suitable surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, on the following conditions:-

1. The petitioner will appear before the Investigating Police Officer within a period of 7 (seven) days from today,
2. The petitioner shall not hamper with the investigation, or tamper with the evidence of the case, and
3. The petitioner 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.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant