Gauhati High Court
Inamul Hoque vs The State Of Assam on 26 November, 2021
Author: Hitesh Kumar Sarma
Bench: Hitesh Kumar Sarma
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010169562021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/3277/2021
INAMUL HOQUE
S/O SRI NURUL AMIN
R/O VILL- TIKTUKI
P.S. DHING
DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM
PIN-782123
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S MITRA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA 26-11-2021 This is an application made under Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking pre- arrest bail of the accused-petitioner, namely, Sri Inamul Hoque, in connection with Nagaon P.S. Case No.1692/2021, registered under Sections 120(B)/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Sections 66/66(C)/66(D)/66(E) of the Information Technology Act.
Heard Mr. S. Mitra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. B. Page No.# 2/3 Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the Respondent State.
Case diary produced has been perused.
The fact of the case, as appears from the FIR, is that on receipt of an input about a cyber fraud racket in a rented house at Dhing Gate, Nagaon, the investigating police officer conducted a search at the rented house of one Ajmot Kha and recovered - (1) 1 HP laptop; (2) 4 mobile handsets, and (3) 200 nos. of mobile SIM cards, used for various cyber frauds and scams. The same were recovered from the possession of one Sohidul Islam and Dildar Hussain.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the accused petitioner is not involved with the offence alleged and recordly the seized materials were recovered from the co-accused and not from the possession of the present petitioner. That apart, he has further submitted that, vide order dated 27.9.2021, three of the co-accused persons have been granted bail by this Court in B.A. No.1991 of 2021. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, they were the main accused persons in the instant case and, in view of grant of bail to them, the petitioner also deserves to be granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail, as prayed for.
However, on consideration of the order granting bail to the co-accused, it is fond that on completion of 61 days in custody, they were granted bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The present application is for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
On perusal of the case diary produced by the State, it has come out that the petitioner is an active part of the racket involved in this case and used to indulge in cyber crime. The nature of the offence, in the instant case, the recovery of the seized articles, particularly 200 SIM Cards, and the materials Page No.# 3/3 so far collected by the investigating police officer, in respect of the involvement of the present petitioner with his co-accused in the commission of the offence alleged, it does not appear to be a fit case for granting the privilege of pre-arrest bail and, rather, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is a fit case for custodial interrogation of the petitioner.
That being so, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of pre- arrest bail to the petitioner and, accordingly, the prayer stands rejected.
The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of accordingly.
Return the case diary.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant