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 4, Cited by 0]

Gauhati High Court

Khairul Hussain vs The State Of Assam on 25 October, 2021

Author: Rumi Kumari Phukan

Bench: Rumi Kumari Phukan

                                                                                Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010170462021




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

                                  Case No. : AB/3303/2021

              KHAIRUL HUSSAIN
              SON OF LT. TYAB ALI
              R/O VILL- SOLMARI, BHARIA
              P.O. BELSOR, P.S. BELSOR
              DIST. NALBARI, ASSAM



              VERSUS

              THE STATE OF ASSAM
              REP.BY THE PP, ASSAM



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. D SARMAH

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM




                                     BEFORE
                    HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN


                                          ORDER

25.10.2021.

By filing this second bail petition under Section 438 of the CrPC, petitioner Khairul Hussain has sought for pre-arrest bail in connection with Hatigaon P.S. Case No.191/2021, registered under Sections 417/406/420 of the IPC.

Page No.# 2/2 Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the record and documents annexed.

The petitioner has come forward with the plea that the informant is suffering from nerve problem, for which he could not sign properly, because of which his signature changes from time to time.

This Court has already gone through the materials in the case diary elaborately and found sufficient complicity of the present petitioner that, with a false pretext, he procured certain documents from the informant and also created some forged documents, with false promise of procuring a license for a wine shop for the informant.

In view of above, such a new ground that has been projected by the petitioner deserves no consideration and accordingly the present petition lacks merit and hence rejected, at the motion stage itself.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant