Gauhati High Court
Ramjan Ali @ Sahil Khan vs The State Of Assam on 19 May, 2023
Author: Malasri Nandi
Bench: Malasri Nandi
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010085112023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/1456/2023
RAMJAN ALI @ SAHIL KHAN
S/O LATE ABDUL KARIM
R/O HATIGAON CHARIALI
P.O. AND P.S. HATIGAON, GUWAHATI-38
DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM
PH. NO. 997103455
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MAHIBUR RAHMAN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI
ORDER
Date : 19.05.2023 Heard Mr. M. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Ms. S. Yasmin, Page No.# 2/3 learned counsel for the informant.
This is an application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., praying for pre- arrest bail by the petitioner, namely, Ramjan Ali @ Sahil Khan, in connection with Hatigaon Police Station Case No. 111/2023, registered under Sections 341/384/392/323/506 IPC.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the day of the incident, a quarrel took place between the petitioner and the informant. He further submits that the allegations made in the FIR are totally false and concocted. It is also submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kamrup(M) granted the interim pre-arrest bail to the petitioner subsequently, after perusal of the case diary, the interim was vacated. Hence, the petitioner has preferred this present application.
On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that as per case diary, there is sufficient materials against the petitioner.
Ms. Yasmin, learned counsel represents the informant has submitted that she has strong objection against the prayer of the petitioner. She further submits that after getting the interim protection from the learned trial court, the petitioner used to threaten the informant and the witnesses. She also stated that the petitioner is a habitual offender and around six cases are pending against him. Therefore, she prays that the prayer of the petitioner may not be considered at this stage.
I have perused the case diary along with the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It reveals that the interim protection was granted to the petitioner by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kamrup(M) and after getting the interim protection, the petitioner used to threaten the Page No.# 3/3 informant and other witnesses by stating that not to depose anything against him. He also threatened the investigating officer through social media.
Considering all entirety, the prayer of the petitioner is rejected. The pre-arrest bail application stands disposed of accordingly. Return the case diary.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant