Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Gauhati High Court

Rahul Bhuyan And 8 Ors vs The State Of Assam on 20 February, 2020

Author: Manish Choudhury

Bench: Manish Choudhury

                                                                    Page No. 1/5

GAHC010305712019




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

                            Case No. : AB 4459/2019

         1:RAHUL BHUYAN AND 8 ORS.
         S/O SRI BHUPEN BHUYAN, P/R/O 1 NO. DHEKIAJULI, BAISHNABPUR, P.O.-
         JARIGURI, P.S.-LALUK, DIST-LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM

         2: BHUPEN BHUYAN
          S/O LATE GOBIN BHUYAN
          P/R/O 1 NO. DHEKIAJULI
          BAISHNABPUR
          P.O.-JARIGURI
          P.S.-LALUK
          DIST-LAKHIMPUR
         ASSAM

         3: TAPAN SAIKIA
          S/O LATE BUBAI
          SAIKIA
          P/R/O 1 NO. DHEKIAJULI
          BAISHNABPUR
          P.O.-JARIGURI
          P.S.-LALUK
          DIST-LAKHIMPUR
         ASSAM

         4: KAKU (DIBYAJYOTI) BHUYAN
          S/O SRI SARAT BHUYAN
          P/R/O 1 NO. DHEKIAJULI
          BAISHNABPUR
          P.O.-JARIGURI
          P.S.-LALUK
          DIST-LAKHIMPUR
         ASSAM

         5: LALIT BHUYAN
          S/O LATE CHANDRA BHUYAN
                                                 Page No. 2/5

P/R/O 1 NO. DHEKIAJULI
BAISHNABPUR
P.O.-JARIGURI
P.S.-LALUK
DIST-LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM

6: SMT. SMRITIREKHA BHUYAN
W/O SRI PANGKAJ BHUYAN
 P/R/O 1 NO. DHEKIAJULI
 BAISHNABPUR
 P.O.-JARIGURI
 P.S.-LALUK
 DIST-LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM

7: SMT. BIJAYA BORA
W/O SRI BABUL BORA
 P/R/O 1 NO. DHEKIAJULI
 BAISHNABPUR
 P.O.-JARIGURI
 P.S.-LALUK
 DIST-LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM

8: JADUMANI BHUYAN
 S/O LATE GOBIN BHUYAN
 P/R/O 1 NO. DHEKIAJULI
 BAISHNABPUR
 P.O.-JARIGURI
 P.S.-LALUK
 DIST-LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM

9: BHAI (PABAN) SAIKIA
 S/O SRI SIBA SAIKIA
 P/R/O 1 NO. DHEKIAJULI
 BAISHNABPUR
 P.O.-JARIGURI
 P.S.-LALUK
 DIST-LAKHIMPUR
ASSA

VERSUS

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM
(NOTICE THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM)
                                                                                        Page No. 3/5


Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. B PHUKAN

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

                                     BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

                                             ORDER

Date : 20-02-2020 Heard Mr. B. M. Chetia, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. Konwar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

By this application under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners viz. 1) Sri Rahul Bhuyan, 2) Sri Bhupen Bhuyan, 3) Sri Tapan Saikia, 4) Sri Kaku (Dibyajyoti) Bhuyan, 5) Sri Lalit Bhuyan, 6) Smt. Smritirekha Bhuyan, 7) Smt. Bijaya Bora, 8) Sri Jadumani Bhuyan & 9) Sri Bhai (Paban) Saikia have prayed for pre-arrest bail, apprehending their arrest, in connection with Laluk P.S. Case No. 304/2019, registered under Section 143/436, IPC.

The FIR was lodged on 21.08.2019, wherein, all the above-named petitioners have been named as accused.

The allegations against the accused persons are, inter-alia, that on the previous date i.e. on 20.08.2019, at about 2-00 p.m., the accused persons armed with deadly weapon, had proceeded to the house of the informant and set fire to his house resulting in destruction of the properties and the house got gutted in the fire. They also threatened the informant and his family and also cut trees. Another incident had happened on the previous date i.e. 20.08.2018, wherein, one Utpal Dutta i.e. the son of the informant had grievously injured one Sri Gopal Bhuyan with a dao in front of other persons near the Namghar. Sri Gopal Bhuyan is the father-in-law of the petitioner no. 6 i.e. Smt. Smritirekha Bhuyan who has also lodged an FIR on 20.08.2019 in respect of the other incident which resulted into registration of Laluk Police Station Case No. 302/2019, under Sections 341/326, IPC. From the materials available in the case diary, it is revealed that the incident of setting fire to the house of the informant is a counter reaction of the incident of assault on Sri Gopal Bhuyan. All the other accused- petitioners are related to said Sri. Gopal Bhuyan. The materials in the case diary further Page No. 4/5 reveal that one individual witness had implicated the 4 (four) accused-petitioners viz. the petitioner no. 1 (Sri Rahul Bhuyan); the petitioner no. 2 (Sri Bhupen Bhuyan); the petitioner no. 5 (Sri Lalit Bhuyan) & the petitioner no. 9; (Sri Bhai (Paban) Saikia) in the incident of setting fire to the house of the informant. As has been found from the above, the petitioner no. 6 is the daughter-in-law of injured person, Sri. Gopal Bhuyan and she has lodged the FIR in connection with Laluk Police Station Case No. 302/2019. The independent witness has not named the accused-petitioners viz. the petitioner no. 3 (Sri Tapan Saikia); the petitioner no. 4 (Sri Kaku (Dibyajyoti) Bhuyan); the petitioner no. 6 (Smt. Smritirekha Bhuyan); the petitioner no. 7 (Smt. Bijaya Bora) & the petitioner no. 8 (Sri Jadumani Bhuyan).

Upon due consideration of the 2 (two) incidents happened in the village and the roles of the accused-petitioners found in the said 2 (two) incidents, I am of the view that the privilege of pre-arrest cannot be extended to the accused-petitioners viz. the petitioner no. 1 (Sri Rahul Bhuyan); the petitioner no. 2 (Sri Bhupen Bhuyan); the petitioner no. 5 (Sri Lalit Bhuyan) & the petitioner no. 9 (Sri Bhai (Paban) Saikia). On the other hand, I am of the considered view that the privilege of pre-arrest can be extended to the accused-petitioners viz. the petitioner no. 3 (Sri Tapan Saikia); the petitioner no. 4 (Sri Kaku (Dibyajyoti) Bhuyan); the petitioner no. 6 (Smt. Smritirekha Bhuyan), the petitioner no. 7 (Smt. Bijaya Bora) & the petitioner no. 8 (Sri Jadumani Bhuyan), provided they extend their full cooperation in the further investigation of the case.

Accordingly, the prayers for pre-arrest bail for the accused-petitioners viz. the petitioner no. 1 (Sri Rahul Bhuyan); the petitioner no. 2 (Sri Bhupen Bhuyan); the petitioner no. 5 (Sri Lalit Bhuyan) & the petitioner no. 9 (Sri Bhai (Paban) Saikia) are rejected.

It is provided that in the event of arrest of the following 5 (five) accused-petitioners viz. the petitioner no. 3 (Sri Tapan Saikia); the petitioner no. 4 (Sri Kaku (Dibyajyoti) Bhuyan); the petitioner no. 6 (Smt. Smritirekha Bhuyan); the petitioner no. 7 (Smt. Bijaya Bora);& the petitioner no. 8 (Sri Jadumani Bhuyan) in connection with Laluk P.S. Case No. 304/2019, they shall be released on bail, subject to furnishing of a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, on the following conditions:-

1) The petitioners nos. 3, 4, 6, 7 & 8 shall appear before the Investigating Officer (I.O.) of the case within 10 (ten) days from today and thereafter, shall also appear before the I.O. as and when their presence are called for and required for investigation and they shall co-operate with the investigation;

2) The petitioners nos. 3, 4, 6, 7 & 8 shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the aforesaid police station, without prior written permission from its officer-in-

charge;

3) The petitioners nos. 3, 4, 6, 7 & 8 shall not hamper with the investigation, or tamper with the evidence of the case; &

4) The petitioners nos. 3, 4, 6, 7 & 8 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or premise 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.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant