Gauhati High Court
Safiqul Haque @ Safikul Haque @ Nanu vs The State Of Assam on 23 March, 2020
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No. 1/3
GAHC010066292020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln. 819/2020
1:SAFIQUL HAQUE @ SAFIKUL HAQUE @ NANU
S/O LT. SABERUDDIN AHMED, R/O VILL. NO. 1 LOHARKATHA, P.S.
MUKALMUA, DIST. NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN-781126
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I H SAIKIA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
Date : 23-03-2020 Heard Mr. I. H. Saikia, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner and Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.
By this application under Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) the petitioner viz. Md. Safiqul Haque @ Safikul Haque @ Nanu has prayed for his release on bail as he is in detention in connection with Mukalmua Police Station Case No. 566/2019 (corresponding G.R. Case No. 2437/2019), registered under Section 147/149/427/294/336/448/380/506, Indian Penal Code.
In the First Information Report (FIR) it is alleged that a group of protestors during the protest carried out on 12.12.2019 had attacked villagers of the Baruaputa village and damaged one public temple. 2 (two) of the miscreants from the said group had entered into Page No. 2/3 the temple and took away the idles from inside of the temple. In the FIR so lodged, the name of the petitioner appears at sl. no. 14. In respect of the protest on 12.12.2019, carried out against the Citizenship Amendment Bill, another case being Mukalmua Police Station Case No. 565/2019 has been registered on the basis of a FIR lodged by one Sub-Inspector of Police, Mukalmua Police Station.
The accused-petitioner has been arrested on 14.03.2020 on the ground that he was amongst the said group of protestors on that date.
The case diary as called for, has been produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and it is found that after the arrest the accused-petitioner has been thoroughly interrogated during the investigation.
It has come to the notice of this Court that earlier, an application, AB No. 4606/2019 was preferred by 17 nos. of accused persons seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Mukalmua Police Station Case No. 566/2019 wherein the present accused-petitioner was one of the petitioners. The said application was rejected by an order dated 08.01.2020. The said fact of rejection of his earlier application, AB No. 4606/2019 has not been disclosed by the accused-petitioner in the present application filed under Section 439, CrPC. Such non- disclosure is to be deprecated.
Notwithstanding the above non-disclosure, having due regard to the nature of the allegations made in the FIR; the sufficient progress made in the investigation of the case the FIR of which is registered on 13.12.2019, as emerged the case diary; the nature of involvement of the accused-petitioner; and the period of detention of the accused-petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that if the accused-petitioner is released on bail at this stage of investigation, the further investigation of the case is not likely to be prejudicially effected and, thus, the further custodial interrogation of the accused-petitioner is not found necessary, provided he continues to extend his cooperation in the further investigation of the case.
Accordingly, the accused-petitioner is allowed to be enlarged on bail of Rs. 10,000/- with one suitable surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalbari, subject to the following conditions :-
1. The accused-petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer of the case as and when his presence is required for the cause of investigation and he shall Page No. 3/3 continue to co-operate with the investigation;
2. The accused-petitioner 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 either to the Court or to any police officer;
3. The accused-petitioner shall not hamper with the investigation, or tamper with the evidence of the case; and
4. The accused-petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalbari without permission of the said Court.
This application stands disposed of in the afore-mentioned terms.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant