Gauhati High Court
Shyamal Mitra vs The State Of Assam on 26 August, 2020
Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010097962020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB 1799/2020
1:SHYAMAL MITRA
S/O LATE GANENDRA MITRA, R/O VILL-JAGRATAPARA, KHARIJA PAIKAN,
KRISHNA GURIA PT-1, KRISHNAI, GOALPARA, MATIA, ASSAM, P.S.-MATIA,
DIST-GOALPARA, PIN-783126
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR F KHAN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
ORDER
Date : 26-08-2020 Heard Mr. F. Khan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.B. Gogoi, the learned Addl. P.P. for the State of Assam.
The petitioner Shyamal Mitra has prayed for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in the matter of Changsari P.S. Case No. 325 of 2020.
On 13th June, 2020 a truck containing 354 bags of Arecanut (Supari) had left a godown at Brahmaputra Industrial Park at Amingaon. The truck belongs to a transport company. The Manager of the transport company had lodged an FIR before police Page No.# 2/2 alleging that after the truck had left its godown, the driver of the truck as well as the truck went missing.
During police investigation it was found that the truck driver and the cleaner of the truck were murdered. The miscreants also looted bags of supari. Thereafter police arrested some persons suspected to be involved in the murder and theft.
The present petitioner is a businessman involved in sale of suparies. He purchased some suparies from the Krishnai market. During police investigation it was found that some of the suparies purchased by petitioners are the stolen suparies looted from the truck. The Case Diary reveals that the present petitioner had purchased the stolen suparies. He has claimed that he did not know that the suparies he had purchased were stolen property.
After going through the Case Diary, I find that there is no sufficient material to justify detention of the petitioner in custody. The only role played by the petitioner in this case is that he had purchased stolen suparies. Case Diary does not have materials to show that the petitioner had intentionally purchased stolen suparies. Thereafter, the pre-arrest bail prayer of the petitioner is allowed. The interim order dated 29.07.2020 passed by this Court is made absolute.
The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.
Case Diary be returned.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant