Gauhati High Court
Bharati Khataniar @ Bharati Kakati vs The State Of Assam on 15 December, 2018
Author: Ajit Borthakur
Bench: Ajit Borthakur
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010221702018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB 3086/2018
1:BHARATI KHATANIAR @ BHARATI KAKATI
W/O FIROZ ALI, R/O HOUSE NO. 13, CHANDAN NAGAR, SIXMILE, PS
DISPUR, DIST. KAMRUP(M), ASSAM
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR Z ALAM
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR
ORDER
Date : 15-12-2018 Heard Mr. Z. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. K. Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State respondent. Also heard Mr. P. K. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the informant.
By this second petition, under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, namely, Bharati Khataniar @ Jina Begum @ Bharati Kakati has prayed for grant of pre-arrest bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 3492/2017 under Sections 420/406/468/471 of the IPC.
Page No.# 2/3 The Case Diary, as called for, is placed before the Court.
Be it mentioned here that this Court by order, dated 01.10.2018, extended the benefit of interim pre- arrest bail to the petitioner subject to certain conditions.
Mr. Z. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the actual fact is that the petitioner came to know that the informant in collision and conspiracy with one Tofiqur Rehman and Officials of Social Welfare Department had tried to get himself appointed in the said department on the basis of fake appointment letter, and when the matter came to light, the informant crooked up a false story and implicated the petitioner who had earlier introduced him to some of the officials of the Department of Social Welfare. According to Mr. Alam, the petitioner is innocent in the whole matter and the FIR is lodged after seven years of the alleged occurrence, which took place in the year 2011.
Mr. T. K. Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that the Case Diary reveals that after obtaining the interim pre-arrest bail, the petitioner has not complied with the condition that he shall appear before the Investigating Officer within the stipulated period of 15 days and on the other hand, there are other similar cases registered at Dispur P.S. against the petitioner. Mr. Mishra, further submits that there is abundance of incriminating materials against the petitioner and as such, it is not a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
Mr. P. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the informant, submits that the petitioner has not approach this Court with clean hand and this bail application is filed suppressing the fact of rejection of earlier pre-arrest bail application bearing AB No. 1863/2018 by this Court and violated the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Shahzad Hasan Khan Vs. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan, reported in 1987 (2) SCC 684 and amounted to violation of the Order No. 4 (Memo No. HC.III-29/2006/329-384/G, dated 19.02.2010) and Notification No. 18, dated 2nd May, 2009, passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court. Mr. Sarma, further submits that the petitioner used several nicknames such as Bharati Kakati/Bharati Khatonia etc. in order to conceal her actual identity to deceive the common people and there are as many as nine cases pending against her, which he has mentioned in the written representation/argument under Section 301(2) Cr.P.C. filed in connection with the instant petition.
Perused the Case Diary.
Perusal of the Case Diary reveals abundance of prima facie incriminating material against the petitioner and as such, this Court finds it not a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
Page No.# 3/3 Accordingly, the pre-arrest bail petition stands rejected.
Return the Case Diary.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant