Gauhati High Court
Abdul Karim @ Karim Ali vs The State Of Assam on 15 June, 2020
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No. 1/2
GAHC010077142020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB 1306/2020
1:ABDUL KARIM @ KARIM ALI
S/O MAZID ALI@ GUPTA MUNSHI, R/O VILLAGE PANIKHAITY, PO
MAHTOLI, PS BOKO, DIST. KAMRUP(R), ASSAM, PIN NO. 781136
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A U CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
Date : 15-06-2020 Heard Mr. S. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.
By this application under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the petitioner viz. Abdul Karim @ Karim Ali has prayed for pre-arrest bail, apprehending his arrest, in connection with Kachumara Police Station Case no. 65/2020, registered under Sections 420/406/379, Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that he has received the concerned case diary.
The allegations in the First Information Report (FIR) are, inter alia, to the effect that some villagers belonging to the category of below poverty line, were allotted ration cards by Page No. 2/2 the State Government. The beneficiaries used to get the articles on the basis of those ration cards from the Fair Price Shop of one A. Hai under Uttar Baguribari Samabay Samity Ltd. During the period of lockdown declared by the State Government, the State Government has made arrangements for free distribution of food item to the poor people having ration cards through the said Fair Price Shop. At about 5-00 a.m. on 05.04.2020, the Fair Price Shop owner had instead of distributing the free rations to the ration card holders, had sold the articles to the petitioner and the petitioner was caught red-handed by the villagers when he was in the process of carrying those articles by 2 numbers of Horse Carts. The villagers had taken possession of the rice and kept it in the house of a co-villagers. The police was accordingly informed.
I have perused the materials available in the case diary, including the statement of the witnesses. From the materials available in the case diary, it transpires that when the petitioner was taking the rice bags after purchasing it from A. Hai, he was caught red-handed with 30 bags of rice. Having considered the nature and the gravity of the allegations more particularly, that the materials with which the petitioner was caught red-handed was meant for free distribution to the poor beneficiaries during the lockdown declared by the Government of Assam, I do not find this to be a fit case to extend the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner at this stage of investigation. Accordingly, this application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438, CrPC is rejected.
Return the case diary.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant