Bibek Das vs State Of Assam

Heard Mr. P. J. Saikia, learned counsel for the accused petitioner and Mr. B. Sharma, learned Addl. P.P. for the State respondent. Also heard Mr.

R.K. Nath, learned counsel for the informant.

By this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the accused-petitioner, namely, Bibek Das has prayed for grant of bail in connection with Dholla P.S. Case

No. 35/2021, (Corresponding to G.R. Case No. 128/2021) under Sections 120B/420/384/311 of the IPC.

The accused petitioner has been behind the bar since 08.05.2021, i.e., for 27 days.

The FIR reveals the allegation that on 17.03.2021, the accused petitioner issued 5 nos. of cheques amounting to Rs. 23,00,567/- to Assam Traders,

Dholla Bazaar of which the complainant is the proprietor against materials brought from the complainant’s firm. But, on depositing the cheques,

the bank dishonoured the cheques with remark “payment stopped by the drawer’’. It is also alleged that the present accused petitioner

along with three others used to involve in cheating and extortion of money from others.

Mr. P. J. Saikia, learned counsel for the accused petitioner, submits that the allegations made in the FIR against the accused are totally false and

fabricated and the same is filed with ulterior motive. Mr. Saikia emphatically submits that there is business transactions between the accused and the

informant and the accused has already paid the entire amount due to the informant. But, the informant misused the cheques given as security.

According to Mr. Saikia, the accused is arrested in violation of the procedure prescribed by law and that due to the ongoing rapid surge of Covid-19

positive cases in the prisons and as per the direction given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to handle the congestion in prisons judiciously, the

accused petitioner’s further continuation of detention may be a health hazard to him as he has already undergone detention in judicial custody for

27 days since 08.05.2021 in a civil dispute. Mr. Saikia also submits that on bare perusal of the FIR itself, the ingredients of the offences under which

the case is registered are not satisfied.

Mr. B. Sharma, learned Addl. P.P. fairly submits that the allegations made in the FIR which is in detail facts itself suggests business transactions

relating to supply of school uniforms between the accused and the informant, who are on partnership and pursuant thereto, there had been monetary

transactions between them.

Mr. R.K. Nath, learned counsel for the informant submits that the informant would like to file written objection against grant of bail to the accused as

the accused petitioner played fraud and breach of trust as a business partner on the informant and further, the matter involves fraud in respect of a

huge amount of money.

At this stage, Mr. B. Sharma, learned Addl. P.P. submits that the representation by the informant has been made without his knowledge.

A perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the accused Forwarding Report suggests business transactions between the accused and the

informant, who acted as partners in supply of school uniforms. The cheques allegedly issued by the accused in favour of the informant were

dishonoured by the bank due to drawer’s stop payment order. The accused petitioner is a permanent resident of Bhairabpur Bongali Gaon under

Silapathar P.S. and as such, this Court finds that there is no chance of him jumping the course of investigation by police. It is also noticed that the

offence under Section 311 of the IPC is added while registering the case along with the aforesaid other alleged offences making it a Session’s

triable case.

Having heard the learned counsel for both the sides as above and keeping in consideration of the pros and cons of the allegations made in detail in the

FIR itself and the grounds of arrest given in the accused forwarding report, this Court is of the considered opinion that further continuation of detention

of the accused in judicial custody may not be warranted in the interest of the ongoing investigation and in view of the current pandemic situation in the

country due to Covid-19.

Accordingly, it is provided that the accused-petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with

one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M.(M), Chapakowa, Sadiya subject, of course, to the following conditions:

i) That the accused-petitioner shall co-operate with the investigating officer as and when required; and

ii) That the accused-petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the

case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court.

This disposes of the bail application.