Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 14590 (GAU)

MONIRUL ISLAM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

AB/1422/2025 · 2025-08-03

Pranjal Das

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010133602025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1422/2025 MONIRUL ISLAM VILLAGE - SALRARA MOLANDUBI PT-I, P.S.- KRISHNAI, DISTRICT - GOALPARA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N UDDIN, MR S K CHHETRY,MR. M ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 04.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. N. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Page No.# 2/3 2. This application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, 1. Monirul Islam, seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Krishnai P.S Case No. 44/2024 registered under Sections 120(B)/328/364-A of IPC. 3. The gist of accusation is that on 19.12.2023, the informant Bhabatosh Saha, lodged an FIR to the Officer-in-Charge, Krishnai PS, alleging inter alia that the accused persons trapped him into a situation where some improper photographs were taken with a girl and thereafter, he was blackmailed with a demand of a large amount of money. 4. It is alleged in the ejahar that informant has been trapped badly in that situation. 5. Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, who places the case diary before the Court flag- marked in some of the relevant portions. 6. I have perused the case diary including the report of the I.O. Implicating materials have emerged from the case diary, prima- facie lending support to the allegations. If the implicating investigating materials revealed from the case diary are accepted as true and on their face value, it would reveal a conduct which does not justify grant of this pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. 7. Therefore, in the circumstances, the prayer for anticipatory bail application stands rejected. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. Page No.# 3/3 9. Return back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant