Rahul Choudhury vs State Of Assam

The Court proceedings have been conducted through remote video conferencing mode due to the prevailing situation in the State due to Covid-19

pandemic. Heard Mr. P.K. Munir, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent

State of Assam.

By this application under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the petitioner viz. Sri Rahul Choudhury has approached this Court

seeking the benefit of pre-arrest bail, apprehending his arrest, in connection with Baihata Police Station Case no. 203/2021, registered under Sections

379/411/34, Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The First Information Report (FIR) has been lodged by a Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to Baihata Police Station on 21.05.2021. As per the FIR,

two motorcycles â€" (i) one of Glamour make (AS-25/H-7738) and (ii) one Royal Enfield make (without number plate) â€" were recovered and

seized from Minar Ahmed and Md. Abdul @ Butula respectively. Those two motorcycles were suspected to be stolen. When Minar Ahmed and Md.

Abdul @ Butula were arrested and interrogated, it was revealed by them that those motorcycles were sold to them by the petitioner and one Gani.

Mr. Munir has submitted that the petitioner is a certificate holder in the trade of Mechanic Motor Vehicle (MMV) and he maintains a garage at

Baihata Chariali area. It is submitted by him that the accusations made in the FIR are false and baseless. It was one Gani who had sold the

motorcycles to Minar Ahmed and Md. Abdul @ Butula.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the concerned case diary has been received. He has submitted, on the basis of the

materials available in the case diary collected during the investigation carried out so far, that the arrested accused persons had revealed that the

motorcycles were sold to them by the petitioner without documents and it was to the petitioner the money was paid by them. The arrested accused

persons could not produce any supporting document regarding two motorcycles and they stated that the petitioner did not give them any documents for

the motorcycles he sold to them. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not involved in the case of selling stolen motorcycles.

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also taken note of the materials in the case diary, as submitted by

the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

Considering the fact that the co-accused named in the FIR have indicated the involvement of the petitioner in the act of selling motorcycles to the co-

accused without supporting documents, I do not find this to be a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail under Section 438, CrPC to the

petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner stands rejected.