Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 9259 (GAU)

AJIBAR RAHMAN AND ANR v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

AB/833/2022 · 2025-01-21

Robin Phukan

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010055832022 2025:GAU-AS:643 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/833/2022 AJIBAR RAHMAN AND ANR S/O ABDUL KARIM, P/R/O VILL-TUKRAPARA, P.S.-CHHAYGAON, DIST- KAMRUP (ASSAM), PIN-781137 2: AJIJUL HOQUE S/O ABDUL KARIM P/R/O VILL-TUKRAPARA P.S.-CHHAYGAON DIST-KAMRUP (ASSAM) PIN-78113 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR Z HUSSAIN, MS B B AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 22.01.2025 Heard Mr. Z. Hussain, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. Apprehending arrest in connection with Sonapur P.S. Case No. 67/2022, under Sections 457/380 of the I.P.C., this application under Section 438 Page No.# 2/3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is preferred by applicants namely, Ajibar Rahman and Ajijul Hoque for grant of pre-arrest bail. 3. It is to be noted here that the said case was registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by one Jayanta Biswas, on 09.03.2022. The essence of allegations in the F.I.R. against the applicants is that he has stolen 106 numbers of box of R.P.M. of worth Rs. 11,63,244/- from the godown-cum-working shed of the informant situated at Kamarkuchi, Sonapur. 4. Mr. Hussain, learned counsel for the applicants submits that this petition was preferred in the year 2022 and this court was pleased to grant interim protection to the applicants, vide order dated 10.05.2022, and after granting interim protection to the applicants, only on one occasion, i.e. 11.12.2024, the matter was listed before the court. But, since then, the matter has not been listed before the court. Mr. Hussain further submits that pursuant to order dated 10.05.2022, the applicants have appeared before the I.O. and cooperating with the investigating agency and therefore, it is contended to make the interim order dated 10.05.2022, absolute in the same terms and conditions. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that after completion of the investigation the I.O. has returned the case in final report, being F.R. No. 14/2023, dated 28.02.2023. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record. 7. Since the final report has been submitted, this Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the applicants seems to be unwarranted here in this case. And therefore, this Court is inclined to make the interim order dated 10.05.2022, absolute in the same terms and condition. Page No.# 3/3 8. In terms of above this A.B. stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant