Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Gauhati High Court

Forjul Islam @ Ganesh vs The State Of Assam on 6 March, 2020

Author: Rumi Kumari Phukan

Bench: Rumi Kumari Phukan

                                                                                             Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010052862020




                                 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                    Case No. : Bail Appln. 642/2020

              1:FORJUL ISLAM @ GANESH
              C/O SANTOSH MAHANTA, S/O JAYNAL ABADIN, R/O JYOTINAGAR,
              KALIMANDIR, P.S.-CHANDMARI, DIST-KAMRUP(M), ASSAM, PERMANENT
              ADD-R/O VILL-NARMARI, P.S.-NAGAON SADAR, DIST-NAGAON, ASSAM


              VERSUS

              1:THE STATE OF ASSAM
              REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner      : MR. S MUNIR

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM


                                     BEFORE
                   HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

                                                 ORDER

Date : 06-03-2020 This is an application made under Section 439 Cr.P.C., seeking bail by the accused-petitioners, namely, Forjul Islam @ Ganesh in connection with Chandmari Police Station Case No. 146/2020, registered under Sections 461/380/511/427/34 IPC. Heard Mr. S Munir, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. NJ Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State also perused the case diary. The accused petitioner was arrested on 07.02.2020.

The allegation in the FIR is that on 05.02.2020, some miscreants intended to steal the cash from the ATM machines located at Railway Colony, Chandmari and vandalized the ATM. The accused was arrested subsequently on the allegation that his presence was noted at the time of occurrence.

Page No.# 2/2 In the case diary there is no any conslusive evidence to suggest the complicity of the accused petitioner with the offence alleged.

Considering all entirety of the matter it appears that further custodial detention of the accused petitioner is not warranted. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail in connection with the case aforementioned on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with one suitable surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M).

In terms of the above, this bail application stands disposed of. Return the case diary.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant