Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam on 30 September, 2022
Author: Kalyan Rai Surana
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010146482022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/2060/2022
RAJU GHOSH AND ANR.
S/O KHUDIRAM GHOSH
VILL- WARD NO. 1, BARPETA ROAD,
P.S. BARPETA ROAD,
DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- 781315
PRESENT ADDRESS-
VILL- ATHIABARI, P.S. GOBARDHANA
DIST. BAKSA, ASSAM
2: RAKESH HORE @ BIPUL HOUR
S/O HARIPODA HORE
VILL- ATHIABARI
P.S. GOBARDHANA
DIST. BAKSA
ASSAM
PIN-781315
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
Page No.# 2/5
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
ORDER
Date : 30.09.2022 Heard Mr. A.M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned APP appearing for the State.
By this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioners, namely, (1) Raju Ghosh and (2) Rakesh Hore @ Bipul Hour, are seeking pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with PRC Case No. 389/2022 under Section 143/147/148/149/447/436/326/302 IPC arising out of Gobardhana PS Case No. 68/2020.
Pursuant to order dated 08.09.2022, the scanned copoy of the case diary has been received from the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baksa, Musalpur, the learned APP has perused the same and has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that the petitioners have never cooperated with the investigation and the charge-sheet submitted in the case they are shown as absconder accused. It is also submitted that there are sufficient materials against the petitioners.
On perusal of the scanned copy of the case diary, it appears that on 22.04.2022 at about 8.00 AM, the mother and two brothers of the informant came to their house from Bhawanipur and that along with others the FIR named accused nos. 1 to 4 armed with Dao, rod and sharp weapons entered into the house of the informant and killed his elder brother, namely, Haradhan Das and younger brother, namely, Biswajit Das. It is also seen that in course of investigation, the petitioners could not be apprehended and thereafter, charge- sheet no. 66/2021 dated 30.06.2021 was submitted before the Court of learned Page No.# 3/5 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baksa, Musalpur. It also appears that the case was assigned to the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Baksa, Musalpur and the said learned Court on a perusal of the charge-sheet, took cognizance of the offence against the accused persons under Sections 143/147/148/149/447/436/326/302 IPC and the summons was issued to the accused persons fixing 04.07.2022 for appearance. It is further seen that the investigation carried out so far and the witnesses examined so far implicates the petitioner no.1 of being party to the attack upon the deceased persons. The post mortem report reveals that the deceased had died due to various injuries, specifically owing to crush injury on the head. Hence, there is no doubt that the victims had died in a brutal manner. Therefore, insofar as the petitioner no.1 is concerned, this is not found to be a fit case to enlarge him on interim pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the prayer for interim pre-arrest bail of petitioner no.1 named above is rejected.
Insofar as the petitioner no.2 is concerned, although he is stated to be an absconding accused, but from the order dated 20.05.2022, it does not appear that the petitioner no.2 named above has been declared as an absconder by the Court. Moreover, on a perusal of the case diary, the Court finds that a mob of many villagers had gathered and attacked the house of the informant on the ground that they had a very dubious image in the village and most of the villagers were offended by the deceased for various reasons. However, no specific allegation has made regarding the involvement of the petitioner no.2 in the crime although materials suggest that he was present with the mob at the site. Therefore, the Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner no.2 would be entitled to pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to grant interim pre-arrest bail to the petitioner no.2 named above by providing that in Page No.# 4/5 the event of his arrest in connection with the case aforementioned, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/-, with two suitable sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of arresting authority/ Court. It is provided that out of two sureties, one should offer his/ her immovable property as security for grant of bail having sufficient value to cover the bail amount. The interim pre-arrest bail is granted to the petitioner no.2 on the following conditions:
(1) The petitioner no.2 shall make himself available to the police or any other investigating agency or Court in the present case as and when require.
(2) The petitioner no.2 shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. He shall not, in any manner, try to overawe or influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(3) The petitioner no.2 shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation/ trial.
(4) The petitioner no.2 shall not misuse his liberty in any manner.
(5) The petitioner no.2 shall not jump over the bail.
It is provided that in the event the petitioner no.2 does not appear before the learned trial Court within 10(ten) days, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner no.2 is deemed to have been recalled/ revoked and the petitioner no.2 would not be entitled to benefit of pre-arrest bail from the 11 th day from Page No.# 5/5 the date of this order.
This interlocutory bail application stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant