Gauhati High Court
Jatin Pathak vs The State Of Assam on 7 January, 2021
Author: Hitesh Kumar Sarma
Bench: Hitesh Kumar Sarma
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010192192020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./3047/2020
JATIN PATHAK
S/O LATE NABIN PATHAK, R/O GOGAMUKH MAJGAON, P.S.-GOGAMUKH,
DIST-DHEMAJI (ASSAM)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M BISWAS
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA
ORDER
Date : 07-01-2021 Heard Mr. T Chutia, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. NK Kalita, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent.
This is an application, filed under Section 439 of the Cr.PC. seeking bail of the petitioner, namely, Jatin Pathak, in connection with Gogamukh P.S. Case No. 213/2020, registered under Sections 341/394/395/397/398/400/326/307 of the IPC read Page No.# 2/2 with Sections 27(2)/25(1)(A) of the Arms Act.
Perused the case diary produced before this Court.
The fact of the case is that on 14.11.2020, an FIR was lodged by the informant Ganesh Kumar Ray alleging therein that on 13.11.2020, at about 7:30 pm, while he alongwith his driver went to Lakhimpur for collecting money, two unknown miscreants robbed Rs. 4 lakhs and injured the driver with gunshot. The two unknown miscreants came in a motorcycle wearing black helmets, kept the motorcycle behind the vehicle of the informant and thereafter caused the gunshot injuries to the driver of the vehicle, Milan Hajong on his left leg.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and he is not involved in the case and therefore, he be granted bail.
On perusal of the materials in the case diary, it is found that the gun used in this case was kept in the house of the petitioner on the previous day and the co-accused arrested in this case are found to have divulged that. The plan of committing the offence was made by the accused persons, including the present petitioner in his house. It has also come out that the accused persons who have committed the offence has also used the motorcycle of the present petitioner.
Therefore, considering the nature of the offence as well as the materials in the case diary, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence, the prayer stands rejected at this stage.
Return the case diary. This petition stands disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant