Mujahid Ali vs The State Of Assam on 10 August, 2020

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Gauhati High Court

Mujahid Ali vs The State Of Assam on 10 August, 2020

Bench: Prasanta Kumar Deka

                                                                                  Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010097652020




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

                               Case No. : Bail Appln. 1418/2020

            1:MUJAHID ALI
            S/O. MD. SAHEB ALI, VILL. PURANI TELAHI, P.O. BANGALDHARA, P.S.
            DHARAMTUL, DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782412.

            VERSUS

            1:THE STATE OF ASSAM
            REP. BY PP, ASSAM.

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. A AHMED

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM




                                          BEFORE
                  THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA
                                    ORDER

10. 08. 2020 Heard Mr. A Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. MP Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam who produced the case diary of Dharamtul Police Station Case No. 48/2020 under Sections 363/368 IPC.

This is an application U/s 439 Cr.P.C. praying for bail by the accused/ petitioner, namely, Md. Mujahid Ali in connection with Dharamtul Police Station Case No. 48/2020 under Sections 363/368 IPC.

I have perused the ossification test and also perused case diary including the statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. As apparent from the case diary and keeping in view the Page No.# 2/2 period of detention, further custodial detention of the petitioner is not required and as such I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above shall be released on bail in connection with Dharamtul Police Station Case No. 48/2020 on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with a suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Morigaon on the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the learned CJM, Morigaon without prior information to the Investigation Officer of the case.

(ii) The petitioner shall not hamper with the investigation or tamper with the evidence of the case, and

(iii) 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.

Bail petition stands disposed of. Return the case diary.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gauhati High Court