AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. S. Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. N.K. Kalita, learned APP for the State. By this application under section 438
Cr.P.C., the accused-petitioners, namely, (1) Md. JoynalAbdin @ Md. Joynal Ali, (2) Ishahaque Ali, (3) Ananta Kalita, (4) Md. Sahjamal, (5) Pranjal
Kalita and (6) Moinul Hoque have sought for pre-arrest bail in connection with Chhaygaon P.S. Case No.519/2021 under section 379/411 IPC.
The learned APP has produced the case diary.
On a perusal of the case diary, it appears that the part of the alleged stolen construction materials like cement, iron rods, etc. was recovered from the
petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 4 and for recovery of the remaining materials, the investigation is still being carried out. It further appears that the investigation
carried out so far does not show involvement of the petitioner no.6 but investigation is being carried out in the respect of another similarly named
person named Moinul Ali, who is the accused no.1 in the FIR. It appears to the Court that the investigation is in a nascent stage and recoveries have
been made from petitioner nos. 1,3 and 4, as such this is not an appropriate case for releasing the petitioner nos. 1 to 5 on pre-arrest bail, and, as such
their prayer for pre-arrest bail stands rejected. In so far as the petitioner no.6, namely, Moinul Hoque is concerned, the Court is inclined to grant pre-
arrest bail to the said petitioner in connection with Chhaygaon P.S. Case No.519/2021, by providing that in the event of his arrest, he shall be released
on pre-arrest bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
arresting authority.
The interim pre-arrest bail shall, however, be subject to the following conditions:
1) That the accused-petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the aforesaid Police Station, without prior written permission from the
Investigating officer of the case;
2) The accused-petitioner shall not hamper with the investigation, or tamper with the evidence of the case; and
3) The accused-petitioner 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.
4) The accused-petitioner shall appear before the IO within a period of 10(ten) days.
In view of the Covid situation, it is provided that notwithstanding the rejection of bail in respect of petitioner nos. 1 to 5 by this order, it would be open
to the petitioners to pray for bail before any appropriate or competent Court.
Application stands disposed of.
Case diary returned.
The petitioner no.6 is granted liberty to produce a downloaded copy of this order before the arresting authority who would be at liberty to verify the
correctness of the order from the website of the Court.