Gauhati High Court
Kushal Goswami vs The State Of Assam on 29 August, 2023
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010159752023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/2562/2023
KUSHAL GOSWAMI
S/O DINESH GOSWAMI
R/O VILL- MALOIBARI
P.O. MALOBARI,
P.S. KHETRI
PIN-782403
PH. NO. 7002601319
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P D BHUYAN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
29.08.2023 Heard Mr. A.M. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Page No.# 2/3 Assam.
This application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the present petitioner, namely, Sri Kushal Goswami, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Basistha P.S. Case No. 390/2023 under section 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code.
The accusation against the present petitioner is that on 07.07.2023, one Shri Pankaj Rahang lodged an FIR that the present petitioner was supplied some inverter batteries by the first informant and against which the present petitioner has issued in a cheque on 10.07.2023 and when the petitioner encash the said cheque, it was found to be invalid cheque.
On receipt of the said FIR, Basistha P.S. Case No. 390/2023, under section 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code was registered.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by order 27.07.2023, this Court granted interim anticipatory bail to the present petitioner and it is submitted that in pursuant to the said order, the present petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Officer.
However, Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the case diary, which was called for in connection with this case is updated only up to 11.07.2023, i.e. prior to the issuance of interim anticipatory bai granted to the present petitioner.
Hence, the fact whether the present petitioner had appeared before the Investigating Officer could not be ascertained from the case diary.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides. Considering the nature of the case involved as well as the submissions Page No.# 3/3 made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the present petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Officer, this Court is of the considered opinion that custodial detention of the petitioner may not be necessary for fair completion of the investigation of Basistha P.S. Case No. 390/2023, under section 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code.
In view of above, the interim anticipatory bail granted to the present petitioner by order dated 27.07.2023, is hereby made absolute.
With the above observation, this anticipatory bail application is hereby disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant