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 3, Cited by 1]

Gauhati High Court

Rattan Pathak @ Ratan Kumar Pathak vs The State Of Assam on 26 October, 2022

Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi

                                                                   Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010166722022




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

                                  Case No. : AB/2369/2022

            RATTAN PATHAK @ RATAN KUMAR PATHAK
            S/O LATE NAREN CHANDRA BAISHYA PATHAK
            VILL- NAGARBERA
            P.O. NAGARBERA
            P.S. NAGARBERA
            DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM
            REP. BY THE LEARNED PP, ASSAM



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. R PHUKAN

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM




                                   BEFORE
                  HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

                                          ORDER

26.10.2022 Heard Shri R. Phukan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, namely, Rattan Pathak @ Ratan Kumar Pathak who has filed this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the Cr.PC praying for pre-arrest bail in connection with Chaygaon PS Case No. 395/2022 registered under Sections 420/468 IPC.

Page No.# 2/2 Also heard Shri B. Sarma, learned Addl. PP, Assam.

This Court vide an earlier order dated 01.08.2021 had rejected the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in AB Case No. 2059/2022. When this application was moved, it was noticed that no fresh grounds were take up requiring a consideration. Accordingly, on 05.09.2022, an additional affidavit has been filed wherein certain facts have been stated. A perusal of the said affidavit would reveal that though certain facts have been disclosed, those would not constitute any new grounds for grant of anticipatory bail. The facts projected may, at best, be taken up for evidence in the trial but would not be relevant for consideration of a second application for anticipatory bail after rejection of the first.

On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition, more so when the initial order dated 01.08.2021 passed by this Court was a reasoned order.

Application accordingly stands rejected.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant