High CourtsSingle Bench

RAJIB BORDOLOI vs THE STATE OF ASSAM

Gauhati HC · Decided on 19 April 2018 · Citation: (2018) 04 GAU CK 0059

HON’BLE JUDGES
AJIT BORTHAKUR
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 161, 438 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B, 419, 420, 468, 470, 471
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
AB 737 of 2018

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 332 words

Heard Mr. R. Chakravorty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K. Konwar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.

By this application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C, the petitioner Sri Rajib Bordoloi has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in

connection with Chandmari Police Station Case No. 1117/2017 under Sections 120B /419 /420 /468 /470 /471, IPC. Case diary, as called for, is placed

before the court.

Perusal of the instant record reveals that by order, dated 19.03.2018, interim anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner, subject to the condition that

he would appear before the Investigating Officer within 10(ten) days and to get his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

On perusal of case diary, it appears that the petitioner, in terms of the interim anticipatory bail granted vide order, dated 19.03.2018 appeared before

the Investigating Officer and got his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Mr. Konwar submits that after obtaining the interim anticipatory

bail, the petitioner has been cooperating in nvestigation into the case and as such his custodial interrogation may not be warranted in connection with

the said case.

Having regard to the above facts as revealed from the case diary and hearing the learned counsel of both the sides and further, in absence of any

adverse report against the petitioner from the side of the Investigating Officer, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner’s custodial

interrogation is not warranted. Therefore, the interim anticipatory bail granted vide order, dated 19.03.2018, is hereby made absolute. The above

anticipatory bail order shall, however, be subject to the following conditions:-

1.

That the 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 or to the police officer: and

2.

That the petitioner shall not hamper or tamper with the investigation in any manner. Anticipatory bail application is accordingly disposed of.