Gauhati High Court
Manash Deka vs The State Of Assam on 3 November, 2022
Author: Kalyan Rai Surana
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010204572022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/3021/2022
MANASH DEKA
S/O RADHA DEKA
VILL- JHARGAON
P.S. AND DIST. TAMULPUR, ASSAM
PIN-781367
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MAHMUD
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
ORDER
Date : 03.11.2022 Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Bhaskar Sarma, learned APP appearing for the State.
Apprehending arrest in connection with Tamulpur P.S. Case No. 120/2022, under section 326 IPC, the petitioner has filed this application under Page No.# 2/3 section 438 Cr.P.C.
The learned APP has produced the case diary and has opposed the prayer for bail.
On perusal of both the case diaries, it appears that for a small incident, quarrel took place between both sides. It appears that a tree, which has roots in the land of the petitioner had branches leading towards the house of the informant. On seeing some branches leaning to his side, one Biplab Mazumder was cutting some leaves for feeding his goat and at that time, one Mintu Deka, brother of the petitioner went inside his house, brought a hammer and assaulted Biplab Mazumder and it appears that since 17.06.2022, the victim was taken to Army Hospital for treatment. However, the present status of his health is not available in the case diary. It is further revealed from the case diary that agitated with the assault, the petitioner went inside his house and brought a dao to assault Khanin Mazumder, in the meanwhile, he had ducked out and the dao blow fell on the mother of the petitioner and ultimately she succumbed to her injuries.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the brother of the petitioner was first assaulted, he had a right of private defence, which he had exercised and accordingly, it is stated that the petitioner be enlarged on bail.
Case diary indicates that not only the mother of the petitioner had succumbed to the injuries caused by the petitioner by a dao, but from the nature of attack, it cannot be said that the petitioner was exercising right to private defence and he appears to be the oppressor.
Therefore, as the evidence collected so far indicates that on an assault Page No.# 3/3 made by the petitioner, his own mother had expired. Under such circumstances, the Court does not find the petitioner to be entitled to the benefit of pre-arrest bail.
Accordingly, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is rejected for the second time. It may be mentioned that the previous pre-arrest bail application was rejected by order dated 31.08.2022, passed in AB 2090/2022.
Case diary is returned.
Application stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant