Gauhati High Court
Md. Badsha Ali vs The State Of Assam on 27 July, 2020
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010081492020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB 1396/2020
1:MD. BADSHA ALI
S/O- LT. KALU SEIKH, R/O- VILL- KURIHAMARI (SIALMARI), P.S.
SIALMARI, DIST.- NALBARI, ASSAM
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY P.P., ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B RAHMAN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
Date : 27-07-2020 Heard Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent, State of Assam.
This application under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) has been filed praying for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner viz. Md. Badsha Ali, apprehending his arrest, in connection with Sialmari Police Station Case no. 12/2020, registered under Sections 406/468/379, Indian Penal Code (IPC).
In the First Information Report (FIR) lodged on 18.04.2020 by one Sabur Uddin Dewan, a Constable attached to Sialmari Police Station, it is alleged that the brother of the petitioner was found selling rice meant for distribution for the poor people during the lockdown period, secretly through the fair price shop belonging to the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner is a licensee of a fair price shop under Pub Barkhetri Page No.# 2/2 Bahumukhi Samabi Samitee Ltd. On 08.04.2020, 60.25 quintals of PDS rice against 253 card holders were lifted. It is projected that thereafter, 54.75 quintals of rice were distributed amongst the beneficiaries. It is further projected that a quantity of 5.50 quintals of rice could not be distributed amongst few beneficiaries due to the prevailing lockdown situation in view of the COVID-19 pandemic. Reference is made to an enquiry report dated 29.05.2020 submitted by the Circle Officer, Barkhetri Revenue Circle. I have perused the said enquiry report. In the said enquiry report, it is mentioned that the petitioner was allotted 60.25 quintals of rice for the month of April 2020. It is mentioned that due to complete lockdown, some of the beneficiaries could not lift their rice. The petitioner could only distribute 54.25 quintals of rice amongst 234 numbers of beneficiaries but 5.50 quintals of rice meant for 19 numbers of beneficiaries could not be distributed and the said quantity was kept stored. It is further mentioned that the beneficiaries had stated before the Enquiry Officer that they could not come out of their houses to collect their allotted rice due to lockdown.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that pursuant to the interim order dated 15.06.2020, the petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Officer (I.O.) of the case and after interrogation, his statement has been duly recorded.
Having considered the above fact situation obtaining in the case and the fact that the petitioner has been cooperating with the investigation by joining the investigation, this Court is of the considered view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary for the purpose of carry out further investigation of the case provided he continues to extend his cooperation in the further investigation of the case and his release on bail at this stage, is not likely to affect the further investigation in any prejudicial manner.
Accordingly, the interim protection granted to the petitioner by order dated 15.06.2020 is hereby made absolute, subject to the following conditions:
1) The petitioner shall, once again, appear before the Investigating Officer (I.O.) of the case within 15 (fifteen) days from today and shall, thereafter, appear before the I.O. as and when his presence is called for the investigation of the case;
2) The petitioner shall not hamper with the investigation or tamper with the evidence of the case; and
3) The 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 to the Court or to any police officer.
The bail application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Return the case diary.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant