Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam on 23 August, 2021
Author: Soumitra Saikia
Bench: Soumitra Saikia
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010096702021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/1770/2021
LUKEN DAS AND ANR.
S/O. LT. KANAK DAS, VILL. AND MADHYAM KHANDA, P.O. AND P.S.
NORTH GUWAHATI, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM.
2: TINKU DAS
S/O. LT. KANAK DAS
VILL. AND MADHYAM KHANDA
P.O. AND P.S. NORTH GUWAHATI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S BORTHAKUR
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
ORDER
23.08.2021 Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.
Page No.# 2/5
2. This anticipatory bail petition has been filed by the petitioners namely, 1. Luken Das and 2. Tinku Das, apprehending arrest in connection with North Guwahati P.S. Case No. 94/2021 under Sections 447/325/307/354/34 of the IPC. The said case has been registered on the basis of an FIR dated 17.06.2020 lodged by the informant one Nayan Das.
3. In the FIR, allegations are made against both the petitioners that on the date of occurrence i.e. 16.06.2021 at about 09.00 PM, petitioners attacked the informant's parents and younger brother with iron rod, dau and spear with an attempt to kill them. Seeing that the informant came forward to save his family but he was also attacked with rod and as a result he fell down on ground. It is further alleged that the informant's wife was also attacked by slapping her as well as by inflicting blows and kicks as a result of which her clothes were torn. According to the informant, the dispute arose because of an old coconut tree belonging to the accused which had leaned towards the house of the informant. The informant's family asked the accused to cut down the tree because of which the accused attacked the informant and his family. It is alleged that the informant's parents and younger brother sustained serious injuries in various parts of the body and had to be taken to the hospital for treatment.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the informant and his family and the accused are close relatives. The informant and his brother are cousins of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that while there is some differences of opinion because of the boundaries between the two families as their lands and houses are adjacent to each other, however, the allegations made in the FIR with regard to the assault and the injuries sustained by the informant and his family members are all false and does not Page No.# 3/5 contain any iota of truth. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court by order dated 28.06.2021 granted interim bail and in pursuance to that they have appeared before the Investigating Officer and their statements were recorded
5. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary before this Court. The case diary produced has been duly perused.
6. A perusal of the case diary reveals that the statements of the witnesses recorded in the case diary are all family members of the informant. No statements of independent witnesses are seen recorded in the case diary which corroborates the allegations in the FIR specially those pertaining to the assault and the injury sustained. The Investigating Officer visited the house in search of the accused, prior to grant of interim bail, and had informed the family members of the accused to intimate the police as and when they are available at home. However, no statements of family members of the accused and/or neighbours are seen recorded in the case diary so far. It is also seen that pursuant to the interim bail order dated 28.06.2021 passed by this Court, the petitioners had appeared before the Investigating Officer and their statements were recorded. While they admit regarding the existence of the dispute, the allegations of assault and inflicting injuries are denied. No weapons or instruments suspected to have been used in the assault alleged have been seized so far as is revealed from the case diary. The case diary also contains medical report from the TRB, Kamrup Civil Hospital, Amingaon, Guwahati as well as from the GNRC, Guwahati. In so far the medical report of TRB Kamrup Civil Hospital, Amingaon, Guwahati is corcerned, it reflects that Hari Charan Das, Amala Das sustained simple injuries while Nayan Das and Bimala Das sustained Page No.# 4/5 grievous injuries. The medical opinion of the Department of Radiology & Imaging, GNRC shows that there is no significant abnormality in the study conducted in so far as Hari Charan Das is concerned. In so far as Bimala Das is concerned, there is an opinion that there is a fracture of "Medial Humeral Epicondyle" which was noted. In the opinion, it is also stated that there is elbow joint effusion. In so far as Bimala Das's injury is concerned, the medical reports indicate a fracture on the left elbow. The injuries sustained by Nayan Das are in respect of his teeth (upper molar). The medical reports, however, do not reveal any injuries on the torso of the informant and his family members which might have been caused by use of iron rods or bamboo sticks as had been alleged in the FIR. Such allegations are also seen in the statements before the Investigating Officer by the victims and their family members. There is no material to suggest in the case diary that these injuries were caused by any weapons used by the petitioners during the quarrel as alleged. As stated above, the case diary does not reflect any seizures made of any weapons or objects which are suspected to have caused during the quarrel causing such injuries. There is also no material in the case diary to suggest that the injuries might have been caused by any instruments or objects as alleged in the FIR. The case diary also does not indicate that there was any attempt by the petitioners to violate the conditions laid down in the order dated 28.06.2021 while granting interim bail.
7. Perusal of the case diary does not reveal any materials to suggest that there is no apprehension expressed by the Investigating Officer that if the petitioners are released on bail, they will interfere with the investigation and/or make attempts to intimidate the witnesses in respect of the aforesaid case.
Page No.# 5/5
8. As stated above, the statements of the petitioners have been recorded by the Investigating Officer. Custodial detention of the petitioners does not appear to be necessary during the investigation of the case.
9. Therefore, the interim anticipatory bail granted in favour of the petitioners, vide order, dated 28.06.2021, is hereby made Absolute, subject to the following conditions:
(i) that the petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer of the case once every month and as and when required for the purpose of investigation till completion of the investigation;
(ii) that the petitioners shall not hamper or tamper with the investigation in any manner; and
(iii) that the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
10. It is made clear that in the event of violation of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer will be at liberty to seek cancellation of the bail as per Law.
11. Accordingly, the pre-arrest bail application stands disposed of.
12. Return the case diary.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant