Gauhati High Court
Safiqul Islam vs The State Of Assam on 24 June, 2020
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010077752020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB 1310/2020
1:SAFIQUL ISLAM
S/O- AJGAR ALI, VILL- UDMARI, P.S. KALGACHIA, DIST.- BARPETA,
ASSAM, PIN- 781309
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY LD. P.P., ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIR ALFAZ ALI
ORDER
Date : 24-06-2020 By this second successive bail application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. the petitioner Safiqul Islam, son of Ajgar Ali, has prayed for pre-arrest bail apprehending arrest in connection with Kalgachia P.S. Case No.59/2020 u/s 147/148/149/447/326/302 IPC.
Heard Mr.S.Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. Also perused the case diary.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ahmed submits that this second successive bail application has been filed on the ground that there were two Safiqul Islam named in the FIR, one was son of Ajgar Ali and the other was the son of Iman Ali. In the earlier order the Page No.# 2/2 prayer for pre-arrest bail was rejected by this Court after considering the materials in the case diary and merit of the case. Learned counsel contended that Safiqul Islam referred to in the case diary is not the present Safiqul Islam, son of Ajgar Ali, rather it would be Safiqul Islam, son of Iman Ali. In order to clarify this ambiguity, the case diary has been called for.
The case diary contains sufficient materials which clarify that the petitioner Safiqul Islam, son of Ajgar Ali has been implicated in this case by various witnesses and there is no ambiguity as to the identity of the present petitioner referred to in the case diary. Therefore, the ground on the basis of which the second successive bail application was entertained appears to have fallen flat.
This being the position, no fresh ground or change of circumstances has been projected for enabling this Court to re-consider the pre-arrest bail or to take a view different from the one already taken in the earlier order while rejecting the prayer for pre-arrest bail of this petitioner. Situated thus, this second bail application appears to be devoid of merit and accordingly stands rejected.
Send back the case diary.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant