Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs The State Of Assam on 17 November, 2022
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010216542022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2826/2022
PARUL BAISHYA AND 2 ORS
W/O LATE ARUN BAISHYA
R/O PANJABARI, SUXAFA PATH, P.S. SATGAON, GUWAHATI- 781037, ASSAM
2: MRS. DIPIKA BAISHYA
W/O MR UTPAL BAISHYA
R/O PANJABARI
SUXAFA PATH
P.S. SATGAON
GUWAHATI- 781037
ASSAM
3: MR UTPAL BAISHYA
S/O LATE PRAFULLA BAISHYA
R/O PANJABARI
SUKAPHA PATH
P.S. SATGAON
GUWAHATI -781037
ASSA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S SARMA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
Page No.# 2/4
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
17.11.2022 Heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State of Assam.
2. By this application under Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [CrPC], the petitioners viz. 1) Mrs. Parul Baishya, 2) Mrs. Dipika Baishya, and 3) Mr. Utpal Baishya have prayed for their release on bail in connection with Satgaon Police Station Case no. 160/2022 registered under Sections 120B/306, Indian Penal Code [IPC].
3. The petitioners were apprehended and thereafter, produced before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup [M] on 18.10.2022 and since then they are in custody.
4. The First Information Report [FIR], lodged on 04.10.2022, has mentioned about commission of suicide by one Ajit Kalita by hanging himself inside his own house on 29.09.2022. The informant who is the wife of Ajit Kalita [since deceased], has inter alia alleged that the 3 [three] petitioners herein used to inflict mental torture upon Ajit Kalita [since deceased] and conspired in a pre-planned manner to abet the act of suicide. The FIR has further mentioned about leaving a suicide note by the deceased.
5. The petitioner no. 1 and the petitioner no. 2 are own sisters. The petitioner no. 3 is the husband of the petitioner no. 2. The three petitioners reside in the same premises and the family of the deceased and the informant are the neighbour.
6. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Ajit Kalita [since deceased] used to disturb the petitioner no. 1 as he would always in the lookout to establish and maintain an illicit relationship with her, a widow. Being so harassed by Ajit Kalita [since deceased], the petitioner no. 1 had to lodge general diary entries vide General Diary Entry no.
Page No.# 3/4 593 dated 21.09.2022 and General Diary Entry no. 771 dated 26.09.2022.
7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor who has received the case diary, has submitted that the General Diary Entry no. 593 dated 21.09.2022 and General Diary Entry no. 771 dated 26.09.2022 are available in the case diary.
8. From the contents of the General Diary Entry no. 593 dated 21.09.2022, it transpires that the petitioner no. 1 had informed the police station that Ajit Kalita [since deceased] wanted to establish and maintain an illicit relationship with her but she avoided him. The General Diary Entry no. 593 further reflects that Ajit Kalita [since deceased] used to send messages to her with the threat that he would die for her. General Diary Entry no. 771 dated 26.09.2022 goes to reflect that both the parties i.e. Ajit Kalita [since deceased] and the petitioner no. 1 appeared before the police station for a discussion and during the discussion, Ajit Kalita [since deceased] undertook not to make attempt to establish any relationship with the petitioner no. 1 and that he would maintain a distance from her. Accordingly, the matter was amicably settled between the parties. The post-mortem examination report indicates that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging which was suicidal in nature.
9. In view of the above fact situation obtaining in the case, this Court is of the considered view that further custodial detention of the petitioners is not necessary for the purpose of carrying out further investigation into the case and their release on bail, at this stage of investigation, is unlikely to cause any prejudicial effect in the further investigation, provided they continue to extend their assistance and co-operation in the further investigation of the case.
10. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioners shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- each with one local surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup [M] subject to the conditions that :-
Page No.# 4/4 [i] the petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation whenever required by the Investigating Officer [I.O.] of the case;
[ii] the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; [iii] the petitioners shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police; [iv] the petitioners shall maintain law and order and they shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or of the commission of which they are suspected; and [v] the petitioners shall regularly remain present during the trial and co-operate the Court to complete the trial for the above offences, if charge sheeted in the case.
The application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant