Brij Kishor Singh vs The State Of Assam on 4 September, 2021

[Cites 7, Cited by 1]

Gauhati High Court

Brij Kishor Singh vs The State Of Assam on 4 September, 2021

Bench: Manish Choudhury

                                                                       Page No. 1/4

GAHC010058512021




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

                                   Case No. : AB/936/2021

            BRIJ KISHOR SINGH
            S/O LATE JAGANATH SINGH, R/O HOUSE NO-7, BASISTHA NEAR PATHOR
            KUWERI, BORPATHAR, P.O.-BELTOLA, P.S.-BASISTHA, GUWAHATI-781029,
            DIST-KAMRUP(M), ASSAM

            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM
            REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR D J HALOI

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

                                     BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

                                          ORDER

Date : 04-09-2021 The Court proceedings have been conducted through online court proceeding services.

2. Heard Mr. D.J. Haloi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State of Assam.

3. By this application under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the petitioner viz. Brij Kishor Singh has approached this Court seeking the benefit of pre-arrest bail, apprehending his arrest, in connection with Page No. 2/4 Gouripur Police Station Case no. 123/2015, registered under Sections 420/406/468/471, Indian Penal Code (IPC).

4. The gist of allegations in the FIR is that one vehicle (JCB) bearing Registration no. AS-01/CC-2564 was found in abandoned condition at a place under the jurisdiction of Gouripur Police Station on 08.04.2014 and the vehicle (JCB) was taken to the Police Station. An enquiry was thereafter, caused. In the meantime, the petitioner appeared and claimed that the vehicle (JCB) belonged to him and submitted documents in support of his claim for ownership. When registration certificate for the said vehicle was asked for, the petitioner failed to submit the same. During the course of enquiry, it was found that the registration no. AS-01/CC-2564 used for the vehicle (JCB) actually belonged to an autorickshaw owned by one Bimal Tumung.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor who has received the concerned case diary, has submitted that the materials collected during the course of investigation carried out so far, go to indicate that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle (JCB) but he did not register the vehicle (JCB) before the concerned District Transport Office (DTO) in his name. But he has been using the vehicle (JCB) to carry out business in a dishonest manner using the registration no. AS- 01/CC-2564 which actually belongs to an autorickshaw. By using such registration no. AS-01/CC-2564 dishonestly, the petitioner has cheated the State Exchequer by evading payment of the Government dues, taxes, etc. Pursuant to the order dated 24.03.2021, the petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Officer (I.O.) of the case and has recorded his statement. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that in his statement, the petitioner has admitted the aforesaid facts.

Page No. 3/4

6. From the nature of allegations made in the FIR, it transpires that the case is primarily based on documentary evidence. Most of the relevant documents have been collected during the investigation carried out so far, though some are yet to be collected and the investigation has been progressed to a substantial extent.

7. Upon consideration of the nature of allegations made in the FIR; the progress made in the investigation so far; and the fact that the petitioner has joined the investigation by appearing before the Investigating Officer (I.O.) of the case, I am of the considered view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner for the purpose of carrying out further investigation of the case is not necessary and his release on pre-arrest bail, at the stage of investigation, is not likely to affect the further investigation of the case in any prejudicial manner, provided he continues to extend his assistance and co-operation in the further investigation of the case.

8. Accordingly, the interim protection granted to the petitioner by order dated 24.03.2021, is hereby made absolute, subject to the following conditions :-

[1] the petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and make himself available as and when his presence is required by the I.O. in the investigation of the case;

[2] the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;

[3] the petitioner shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation Page No. 4/4 and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police; and [4] the petitioner shall maintain law and order and he shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or of the commission of which he is suspected;

9. The application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gauhati High Court