Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010255222024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/3188/2024 ANUP DAS S/O ABHI DAS R/O STELLA MARIS, SEBASTIAN BIA ROAD, LAITUMKHRAH LUMSOHRA, SHILLONG (MB), EAST KHASI HILLS, LAITUMKHRAH, MEGHALAYA-793003. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE LEARNED PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R A CHOUDHURY, MR. R A MAZUMDER Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 29-01-2025
Heard Mr. R.A. Mazumder, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State respondent. Page No.# 2/3
2. This is an application u/s 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for granting pre-arrest bail to the accused petitioner in connection with
Silchar
P.S.
Case
No.
731/2023
u/s
111(2) (b)/111(4)/303(2)/317(4)/323/61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 3. Case Diary is received. Perused the same. Heard both sides. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Mazumder that the present petitioner is innocent and he is no way involved with the alleged offence for any theft of vehicle. It is a fact that he is the registered owner of the seized vehicle i.e. Scorpio bearing registration No. ML-10-B-9163 which was intercepted by police at the relevant day of the incident. He further submitted that he purchased the vehicle from one Mr. Sambarlang Sawkmie through a registered sale deed and his name is also registered as a registered owner in the registration certificate. Further, he submitted that he is not an FIR named accused. However, he is not aware about anything against the other vehicles which were also intercepted by police. Mr. Mazumder further submitted that the zimma petition is also allowed of his vehicle and accordingly the zimma of the said vehicle is also allowed by the learned Trial Court below considering his zimma application. Further he submitted that he is ready and willing to extent his cooperation in further investigation of the case. 5. Mr. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that at present the vehicle is registered in his name which is also available in the case record.
But, from the materials available in the Case Diary it is seen that after interception of vehicle it was also sent with the dealer of Mahindra & Mahindra wherefrom it is seen that there is no such vehicle number is available in their system record. More so, on the further enquiry it is seen that no engine
Page No.# 3/3 no. is available of the said vehicle. Thus it is stated that the vehicle and the chassis no. are tampered with. Mr. Das further submitted that from the note of the Investigating Officer as well as from the materials available in the Case Diary, it is also seen that it is an organized crime whereby the vehicle, the engine no., chassis no., registration no. etc are tampered with some stolen vehicles and thereafter those stolen vehicles were subsequently sold to other States. Mr. Das further submitted that the case is still under investigation and accordingly he raised objection and submitted that it is not at all fit case to extent the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present petitioner. 6. After hearing the entire submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and facts and circumstances of the case, I have also perused the Case Diary and it is seen that the Investigating Officer has collected sufficient materials and particularly it is seen that at the time of enquiry the chassis no. and the registration no. is found to be tampered with and at the same time it is also seen that the engine no. was not available and no record is available before the authorised dealer regarding the registration of the vehicle. 7. Considering this aspect of the case, the gravity of the offence and also considering that the investigation is still under process, I do not find it a fit case to extent the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present petitioner and accordingly the same stands rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant