Gauhati High Court
Jeet Kumar Boro And Anr vs The State Of Assam on 21 April, 2020
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No. 1/3
GAHC010031842020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB 539/2020
1:JEET KUMAR BORO AND ANR.
S/O SRI NAGEN KR. BORO, VILL-GOLDING PARA, P.S.-MUSHALPUR, DIST-
BAKSA (ASSAM)
2: INDRAJIT BORO
S/O SRI BUDHA BORO
VILL-NO. 2 NAROA
P.S.-MUKALMUA
DIST-NALBARI
ASSA
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N UDDIN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
Date : 21-04-2020 Heard Mr. N. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. T. K. Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.
By this application under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the petitioners viz. 1) Jeet Kumar Boro and 2) Indrajit Boro have prayed for pre-arrest bail, apprehending their arrest, in connection with Simla Police Station Case No. 5/2020, registered under Sections 302/34, Indian Penal Code.
Page No. 2/3The concerned case diary as called for, has been received by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on 02.02.2020 by the informant in respect of the death of his younger brother, Derhasat Brahma suspecting the same to be a case of murder. In the FIR, it has, inter-alia, been alleged that on 30.01.2020, the younger brother of the informant along with the 2 (two) petitioners, went out together and they were initially fishing in the fishery of one Sri Hangkhray Uzir in his farmhouse and after taking meal there, at about 10 p.m., they appeared to have met with an accident on the road when they proceeded therefrom. After the said accident, all the 3 (three) persons were taken to a Hospital at Pathsala by 108 Ambulance service. Finding the condition of Derhasat Brahma serious, he was referred to Narayana Hospital, Guwahati where he died during his treatment.
It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 3 (three) were proceeding by a motor cycle with the deceased as the rider and 2 (two) petitioners as pillion riders and they met with an accident on the national highway all of a sudden. As a result of the accident, all 3 (three) persons had sustained injuries. After the accident, all 3 (three) persons were initially admitted in a Hospital at Pathsala and finding the condition of Derhasat Brahma serious he was referred to the Narayana Hospital, Guwahati. Thus, he submits that the allegation regarding murder is without any substance.
It is submitted by Mr. Mishra on the basis of the materials available in the case diary, which have been collected during the course of investigation carried out so far, that the deceased had apparently died due to the injuries sustained in the road accident when all the 3 (three) persons were proceeding on a motor cycle and there are no incriminating materials, as on date, in the case diary which suggest that the death of the deceased was a case of murder.
In view of the above, I am of the considered view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary since they have already joined in the investigation by appearing before the investigating officer of the case, pursuant to the interim order dated 12.02.2020; and provided they continue to extend their cooperation in the further investigation of the case. This Court is of the prima facie view that the course of investigation is not likely be prejudicially affected if such privilege is extended to the petitioners.
Accordingly, the earlier interim protection of pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners Page No. 3/3 by the order dated 12.02.2020 is hereby made absolute, subject to the conditions :-
(1) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer of the case as and when their presence are required for the cause of investigation and they shall continue to co-operate with the investigation;
(2) The petitioners shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the aforesaid police station, without prior written permission from its Officer In-Charge;
(3) The petitioners shall not hamper with the investigation, or tamper with the evidence of the case; & (4) The petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or premise 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.
The bail application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Return the case diary.
Let a copy of this order, if requested, be issued to the learned counsel for the petitioners under signature of the Court Master.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant