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 8, Cited by 0]

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam on 23 August, 2021

Author: Soumitra Saikia

Bench: Soumitra Saikia

                                                                           Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010108892021




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

                                     Case No. : AB/2048/2021

            SUNNY DEB AND ANR
            S/O LATE TAPAN CHANDRA DEB
            R/O MALUGRAM, P.O. AND P.S. SILCHAR
            DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM

            2: SRI NIPU DHAR
             S/OLATE NIKHIL DHAR
            R/O TARAPUR RAILWAY COLONY
            P.O. TARAPUR
             SILCHAR-3
            P.S. SILCHAR
             DIST. CACHAR
            ASSAM

            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM
            BEING REPRESENTED BY PP, ASSAM



Advocate for the Petitioner     : MR. S P CHOUDHURY

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM




                                    BEFORE
                     HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

                                            ORDER

Date : 23.08.2021 Heard Mr. K. Biswakarma, learned counsel appears for the Page No.# 2/5 petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam.

2. The Anticipatory Bail petition has been filed by the petitioners namely, 1) Sri Sunny Deb and 2) Sri Nipu Dhar seeking Anticipatory bail as they are apprehending arrest in connection with Silchar Police Station Case No. 1880/2021 (GR Case No. 3229/2021) under Sections 448/328/384/501/505(2)/506/34 of Indian Penal Code.

3. In pursuance to an FIR dated 13.06.2021 filed by the informant, Sri Sanjit Sarkar, the aforesaid case was registered. In the said FIR it is alleged that the petitioners along with another lady namely, Antarika Roy came to the house of the informant and after intoxicating him taking pictures in compromising position with the lady namely Antarika. The petitioners thereafter started to blackmail the informant and demanded Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs) only. They also made him sign on some papers. The informant alleged taking personal loan from some people he managed to pay them Rs.10,00,00/- (Rupees ten lakhs) only. The petitioners also forced him to sign on four blank cheques and took the papers of his house. The informant states that he had however gone to the Bank and cancelled those cheques.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations made against the petitioners are false and the petitioners did not commit any crime or harassment as alleged.

Page No.# 3/5

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are being made scapegoats for some vested interests of the informant. To satisfy his desire, the petitioners have been dragged into this case.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no purposes will be served by allowing the petitioners to be detained in custody during the investigation of the case as they are not connected with the aforesaid matter.

7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case dairy. The case dairy produced has been duly perused.

8. The case dairy reveals that the matter is under investigation. The account details of the informant is also available from where it is seen that there are 4 (four) cheques dated 27th May, 2021 against which instructions for " stop payment" was issued. From the Bank details of the informant which are produced before the court it is not clear as to whether any payments have been made to the petitioner as alleged. The mobile phone belonging to petitioner no.1 Sri Sunny Deb has also been shown to be seized by seizure list dated 14.06.2021.

9. Perusal of the case dairy does not reveal any incriminating materials against both the petitioners. It is seen that the petitioner no.1, Sunny Deb has also been served a Notice under Section 41 (A) to appear before the police.

10. Considering the stage of investigation it appears that Page No.# 4/5 grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners will not hamper the investigation of the case.

11. Upon due consideration of the facts of the case and the pleadings in this regard available before the court, this Court is of the view that the petitioners can be allowed to go on anticipatory bail as prayed for, in connection with Silchar Police Station Case No. 1880/2021 (GR Case No.3229/2021) under Sections 448/328/384/501/505(2)/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the event of their arrest in connection with the aforesaid case, the petitioners be released on a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only each with a local surety of like amount. The bail granted however, is subjected to the following conditions:-

1. That the petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 7(seven) days and co-

operate in the investigation as and when required;

2. The petitioners shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the police station, without prior written permission from Officer-in-Charge, Silchar Police Station.

3. That the petitioner shall not hamper or tamper with the investigation in any manner; and

4. That the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person/witness acquainted with Page No.# 5/5 the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer in connection to this Police Station Case.

12. If any of the conditions are found to be violated then the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioners.

13. Anticipatory bail petition is accordingly allowed.

14. Returned the Case Diary.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant