Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 17684 (GAU)

SRI GANGESHWAR SHUKLA v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

Bail Appln./2650/2025 · 2025-08-31

Shamima Jahan

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010181592025 2025:GAU-AS:11739 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2650/2025 SRI GANGESHWAR SHUKLA S/O CHUNMUN SHUKLA R/OP BARJADWA MADHAPUR P.O. RAMPUR BORDIHA P.S. GHUGULI DIST. MAHARAJGANJ (UTTAR PRADESH), PIN-273303. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR I RAFIQUE, N CHAKRABORTY,MS A AFREEN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 01.09.2025 Heard Mr. I. Rafique, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State. By this application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 the Page No.# 2/4 petitioner, viz., Sri Gangeshwar Shukla has prayed for bail in connection with Jogighopa P.S. Case No.91/2025 registered under Sections 61(2)/310(4)/319(2) of the BNS. The F.I.R. dated 01.08.2025 reveals that on source information about a racket to transport fake currency and loot black money from businessmen and that they were coming from Guwahati to Bongaigaon, the police personnel conducted naka checking and during the same they found a vehicle which was proceeding from a particular direction to another and on seeing the checking put up by the police personnel the said vehicle turned on a different side and the police personnel chased the said vehicle and stopped it and apprehended the petitioner along with three others from the said vehicle. The said accused persons were brought to the Jogighopa Police Station for interrogation and during interrogation it was found that they by coordinating with one Bhaskar Boro had the intention to loot an amount of Rs.12 Crores which was coming from Tura, Meghalaya towards Bongaigaon side and when the I.D. numbers were asked from the accused persons, two accused persons had given fake identities to the police personnel. Mr. I. Rafique, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that as far as the present petitioner is concerned, no fake identity or no incriminating materials were recovered from him and that he submits that the petitioner had accompanied the accused No.1 in search of some plot of land which the accused No.1 wanted to take on lease and that he was not connected with the alleged offence. Page No.# 3/4 Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. P.P., however, submits that the petitioner was found in company with other accused persons, who were apprehended on the basis of source information of looting black money and as such he is also involved with the said offence. The learned Addl. P.P., on perusal of the Case Diary and looking into the statements made by the accused persons, had submitted the aforesaid fact. On consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, it is found that as far as the present petitioner viz., Sri Gangeshwar Shukla is concerned, no incriminating materials were found during the arrest of the said person. In the forwarding report, it is reflected that the petitioner is a Havildar in Assam Rifles organization and that he entered into a conspiracy to commit dacoity on a person who was coming down from Tura. However, it is also stated in the forwarding report that the petitioner without informing his senior officers had gone to loot a person. It is unbecoming as to whether a person who was on his way to loot will inform the senior officers and as such, there are doubts with regard to the same. As such, this Court deems it fit to release the petitioner on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.30,000/- with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned SDJM(M), North Salmara, Abhayapuri under the following conditions :- (1) That the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the I.O. as and when called for. (2) That the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence and shall not Page No.# 4/4 influence the witnesses connected with the case. The Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant