Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 13056 (GAU)

JITA TAI v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

AB/1185/2025 · 2025-06-22

Susmita Phukan Khaund

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010111172025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1185/2025 JITA TAI W/O MUKUT BARUAH R/O WARD NO. 1 KANEDY PARK P.S. MARIANI DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D MEDHI, S YESMIN,MR K THAKUR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 23.06.2025 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. D Medhi for the petitioner Jita Tai who has filed this application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for pre-arrest bail apprehending arrest in connection with Jorhat PS Case No. 15/2023 under Sections 120(B)/406 of the IPC. Page No.# 2/3 2. Learned Addl.Public Prosecutor Mr.M.P.Goswami is present for the State respondent and has raised serious objection in granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner stating that there are incriminating materials in the Case Diary. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that she and her husband with the promise of providing appointment to unemployed youths collected a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- from the informant Amitav Dutta and Rs.18,00,000/- from other unknown youths. When the money was demanded back, false assurance was given by the petitioner and her husband that they have been appointed. On 27.03.2023, some notary agreements were executed to return the money. At present, the petitioner and her husband have been avoiding calls from the aggrieved. 4. I have also scrutinized the Case Diary. There are incriminating materials against the petitioner in the Case Diary. The allegation against the petitioner is of serious nature. The petitioner being a Government employee has been engaged in procuring cash for job. 5. Considering all aspects, at this juncture, there appears to be no justified ground to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. 6. The pre-arrest bail application stands rejected at this stage. 7. Send back the Case Diary. 8. The pre-arrest bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Page No.# 3/3 Comparing Assistant