Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Gauhati High Court

Bablu Saha And 2 Ors vs The State Of Assam on 5 March, 2019

Author: Hitesh Kumar Sarma

Bench: Hitesh Kumar Sarma

                                                                Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010038462018




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

                                   Case No. : AB 577/2018

            1:BABLU SAHA AND 2 ORS.
            R/O BALAGARH MILANPARK, HOOGHLY CHINSURAH (M), PO AND PS
            SAHAGANJ, DIST. HOOGHLY, WEST BENGAL, PIN-712104

            2: JOYDIP MUKHOPADHYAY
             R/O DREAMLAND APARTMENT
             STATION ROAD
             BAGBAZAR
             CHANDANNAGAR
             DIST. HOOGLY
            WEST BENGAL
             PIN-712136


            3: TUSHAR SUR
             S/O LATE MANIK LAL SUR
             R/O DHARAMPUR
             NONAPUKURDHAR
             HOOGHLY
             CHINSURAH (M)
             DIST. HOOGHLY
            WEST BENGAL
             PIN-71210

            VERSUS

            1:THE STATE OF ASSAM
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, STATE OF ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. J ROY

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
                                                                                   Page No.# 2/2


                                     BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA

                                           ORDER

Date : 05-03-2019 This is an application, filed under Section 438 Cr.PC, praying for pre-arrest bail of the petitioners, namely, 1) Mr. Bablu Saha, 2) Mr. Joydip Mukhopadhyay, and 3) Mr. Tushar Sur, in connection with B.I.(EO) PS Case No. 05/2015 under Sections 120(B)/406/420 IPC read with Sections 4/5/6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act.

Heard Mr. J. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. N.J. Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state respondent.

Case diary produced has been perused.

On examination of the entire records, it is found that notice under Section 41A Cr.PC has been issued to the petitioners. Section 41A(1) Cr.PC makes it appear that such notice is issued to those persons whose arrest is not required under sub-Section 1 to Section 41 Cr.PC. The arrest of the petitioners is subject to the other provisions, particularly sub-Section 4 of Section 41A Cr.PC only. That being so, the petitioners are directed to comply with the notice under Section 41A Cr.PC.

They shall appear before the investigating officer in accordance with the notice issued to them under Section 41A Cr.PC within 15 (fifteen) days from today.

In view of the provisions of Section 41A(1) Cr.PC and the observation made above, the direction given to the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer, should not be construed as an order granting pre-arrest bail to them.

With the above observations and direction, this petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant