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 5, Cited by 0]

Gauhati High Court

Sarifuddin Ahmed vs The State Of Assam on 10 November, 2021

Author: Rumi Kumari Phukan

Bench: Rumi Kumari Phukan

                                                                                 Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010167392021




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

                                   Case No. : AB/3289/2021

             SARIFUDDIN AHMED
             S/O LATE AZIMUDDIN AHMED, PREMANENT R/O NIZARAPAR, P.S.
             NOONMATI, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.



             VERSUS

             THE STATE OF ASSAM
             REPRESENTED BY PP, ASSAM.



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. P GOGOI

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM



                                          BEFORE
               HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN
                                ORDER

10.11.2021 By this bail application under Section 438 CrPC, petitioner, namely, Sarifuddin Ahmed, has sought for pre-arrest bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Panbazar PS Case No. 280/2018, under Sections 417/420/465/471 of the IPC. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Also perused the record and the Case Diary.

The record reveals that the petitioner herein, stood as a bailor by producing false salary Page No.# 2/2 certificate while procuring bail of one accused person, namely, Majnur Ali, in connection with Noonmati PS Case No. 97/2018. The learned Court, on the basis of the report given by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Guwahati, has found that the signatory to the salary certificate has already been transferred and no more in the same place. It can be inferred now that the petitioner has relied upon the forged document, while procuring the bail of said Majnur Ali.

That being so, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the accused petitioner and accordingly, the bail application stands rejected.

Return the Case Diary.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant