Gauhati High Court
Birjeet Singh @ N Birjeet Singh vs The State Of Assam on 8 June, 2022
Author: Robin Phukan
Bench: Robin Phukan
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010031082021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/558/2021
BIRJEET SINGH @ N BIRJEET SINGH
S/O. BIJAY KUMAR SINGH, R/O. HOUSE NO.08, BYE LAND NO.05, TARUN
NAGAR, ABC, P.O. BHANGAGARH, P.S. BHANGAGARH, DIST. KAMRUP (M),
ASSAM, PIN-781006.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY PP, ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BORA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
ORDER
08.06.2022 Heard Mr. A.M. Bora, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr. V.A. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. N. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.
Apprehending arrest in connection with Bhangagarh P.S. Case No. Page No.# 2/3 37/2021, under Sections 420/406 IPC, this application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. is preferred by applicant Birjeet Singh @ N. Birjeet Singh for grant of pre-arrest bail.
It is to be noted herein that Bhangagarh P.S. Case No. 37/2021, under Sections 420/406 IPC has been registered on the basis of FIR lodged by one Rahul Hazarika on 24.01.2021 to the effect that Mr. Birjeet Singh @ N. Birjeet Singh has cheated an amount of Rs. 1,85,000/- from him, by promising to invest the same in investment plan and return double the amount in 2 years.
Mr. A.M.Bora, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to order of this Court, dated 24.02.2021, the applicant has appeared before the I.O. and his statement is recorded.
Mr. Bora further submits that the dispute between the parties is a commercial dispute and the informant has already received an amount of Rs. 1,79,100/- as per Annexure No. 6 enclosed with the petition and also he has received that the sum of Rs. 5,900/- on 29.01.2021.
Mr. Bora further submits that the case was registered in the year 2021 and interim relief was granted vide order, dated 24.02.2021, and as such, custodial interrogation of the applicant seems to be not warranted here in this case and therefore, it is contended to make the interim order, dated 24.02.2021, absolute in the same terms and conditions.
On the other hand, producing the case diary before this Court, Ms. N. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent submits that the I.O. has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the applicant and that there is a racket and therefore, Ms. N. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition.
Page No.# 3/3 However, Ms. Das submits that the applicant has appeared before the I.O., pursuant to order of this Court, dated 24.02.2021, and his statement has also been recorded by the I.O. and his custodial interrogation may not be necessary in the interest of investigation.
Considering the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, and also considering the materials collected so far in the case diary and also considering the nature of accusation and the punishment prescribed for the same, this Court is inclined to make the interim order, dated 24.02.2021, absolute in the same terms and conditions.
In terms of above, the AB stand disposed of.
The case diary be sent back.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant