Gauhati High Court
Pranjal Patangia vs The State Of Assam on 9 April, 2021
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010030912021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/544/2021
PRANJAL PATANGIA
S/O SHRI JIBAN PATANGIA, R/O BHUYANHAT NAUBOISHA, AMGURI, P.O.-
AMGURI BHUYANHAT, P.S.-AMGURI, DIST-SIVASAGAR, ASSAM, PIN-
785680
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS M BORAH
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
09.04.2021 Heard Ms. M. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.K. Misra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent, State of Assam.
2. By this application under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the petitioner viz. Shri Pranjal Patangia approached this Court seeking the benefit of pre-arrest bail, apprehending their arrest, in connection with Moranhat Police Station Case no. 95/2019 (G.R. Case no. 699/2019), registered under Sections 120B/379/420/34, Indian Penal Code Page No.# 2/4 (IPC) for the second occasion after rejection of his earlier bail application, AB 3294/2019 by an order dated 20.03.2020.
3. After rejection of his earlier bail application, the petitioner has approached this Court on the grounds that in the meantime, the mother of the petitioner got infected with COVID 19 and she had to be admitted in the ICU of Jorhat Medical College. It has further been urged that the parents of the petitioner are old and ailing ones and the petitioner has to look after them. It has further been stated that the petitioner had himself suffered from COVID 19 in the month of September, 2020 and he was discharged from hospital on 16.09.2020.
4. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant excerpts of the earlier order dated 20.03.2020.
"From a perusal of the First Information Report (FIR), lodged on 12.09.2019, it has emerged that on receipt of telephonic information from the Superintendent of Police, Charideo as regards carrying of unaccounted Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) in 1,000 cartons in a truck bearing registration no. AS-02/AC-1593 from Arunachal Pradesh to unknown destination, the said truck was intercepted near Jhollong Petrol Pump on National Highway No. 37 under Moranhat Police Station.
On being interrogated, the driver of the truck could not produce valid papers as regards the IMFL in 1,000 cartons loaded in the truck and in presence of excise officials, the truck and the consignment were seized suspecting that the consignment was transported illegally, as stock of IMFL liquors was made for sale only in Arunachal Pradesh. The driver of the truck, Md. Manzoor was arrested. Based on his information, the present accused-petitioners are suspected to be involved in transportation of the consignment loaded in the said truck.
It is projected on behalf of the accused-petitioners that the accused-petitioners are not involved in respect of the alleged transportation of IMFL liquor. It is submitted on behalf of the accused-petitioner, Mr. Sagar Das that he runs a scrap store at Amguri town and he has no connection with the incident. It is submitted that in the night of the incident i.e. 11.09.2019, he was coming back from Dibrugarh where he had gone for his medical treatment. It is submitted on behalf of the accused-petitioner, Mr. Pranjal Patangia that he runs a cloth store at Amguri and he had gone to Dibrugarh on 11.09.2019 and at Dibrugarh, he met the other accused-
Page No.# 3/4 petitioner, Mr. Sagar Das. As they both hail from Amguri town, they were coming back from Dibrugarh by hiring a vehicle to Amguri in the night of the incident i.e. 11.09.2019. It is submitted on behalf of the accused-petitioner, Mr. Rantu Borah that the vehicle bearing registration no. AS-03-W-7533 is registered in the name of his wife and sometimes, he drives the vehicle or otherwise, the same is driven by an employed driver.
The materials available in the case diary are perused. From the FIR, it is noticed that the driver had mentioned that the owner of the consignment he was carrying in the truck, was following the truck along with 3 (three) others in a vehicle bearing registration no. AS03/W-7533, a Maruti Suzuki Dzire, from Lepetkata, Dibrugarh. It is pertinent to mention here that another person, Mr. Kaustov Saikia had preferred an application, A.B. No. 3248/2019 seeking his pre-arrest bail in connection with the same Moranhat Police Station Case No. 95/2019. The statements found recorded and the materials available in the case diary indicate that the consignment of IMFL liquor was purchased by the accused-petitioner, Mr. Sagar Das. The materials further corroborate the fact that the truck whereby the consignment so carried containing IMFL liquor meant for sale only in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, was followed by the Swift Suzuki Dzire vehicle bearing registration no. AS-03/W-7533. The occupants in the said vehicle were noticed by 2 (two) constables on duty at the relevant time of the incident as Kaustov Saikia, Sagar Das, Pranjal Patangia and Rantu Borah.
The materials available in the case diary goes to indicate the complicity of all the present 3 (three) accused-petitioners in the act of transportation of illegal IMFL from Arunachal Pradesh which are meant for sale only in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, into the State of Assam without any valid documents.
The prayer for pre-arrest bail in respect of the other co-accused, Mr. Kaustov Saikia has been rejected by an order dated 05.02.2020 of this Court passed in A.B. No. 3248/2019 on perusal of the materials available in the case diary.
Having considered the incriminating materials found against the present accused-petitioners during the course of investigation carried out so far till date, this Court is of the considered view that the prayers made on behalf of the accused-
Page No.# 4/4 petitioners for their pre-arrest bails under Section 438, CrPC cannot be considered as justified and accordingly, the prayers for such pre-arrest bails are rejected. Interim orders passed earlier stand recalled."
5. It is settled that after rejection of application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438, CrPC on merits, there is scope to file a subsequent bail application for pre-arrest bail only if there is a change in the fact situation or in law which requires earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. The grounds cited in this second application on behalf of the petitioner do not appear to be of any substance for re- consideration of the earlier order dated 20.03.2020 passed in AB 3294/2019.
6. In such view of the matter, this pre-arrest bail under Section 438, CrPC is not entertained and accordingly, the same stands rejected.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant