Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. R. D. Lall. Heard also the learned Public Prosecutor, Assam, Mrs. M. Sarma. Notice of motion was issued on this application on 29.1.86. The State has not filed any affidavit. However, Mrs. Sharma had made oral submissions.

2. The petitioners pray for quashing of the proceedings in Panbazar Police Station Case No. 213 of 1985 corresponding to G. R. Case No. 3616/85 under Section 420/379/120-B of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup at Gauhati including the order dated 21.12.85 issuing non-bailable warrant against the petitioners and the order dated 23 12.85 adding Section 120-B I.P.C. passed in the same proceeding.

3. The aforesaid Panbazar P. S. case and the corresponding G R case has been registered upon an F.I.R. lodged by one B.K. Saraf of M/s Shankarlal Bhagawati Prasad Saraf, Gauhati alleging theft of R/R and release of consignment sent on the basis of order placed by one Ashok Kumar Agarwalla of M/s. Jaiprakash Ashok Kumar, Bhairkunda, Deoghar, Bihar. The petitioners were arrested and produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Patna who released them on bail provisionally till 21.12.1985 on condition that they must surrender before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gauhati, Assam, and abide by the further directions of the said Court. The petitioners were directed to produce that Court's certificate latest by 10.1.86 failing which it would make out a new ground for their being arrested in that case. A copy of the order was supplied to the Inspector of Police, C.I.D., Gauhati who had arrested the petitioners. It appears on 21.12.85 the Inspector of Police, C. I.D. applied to the learned Chief Judi­cial Magistrate, Kamrup at Gauhati stating that the petitio­ners failed to appear pursuant to the Patna order and, as such, prayed that warrant of arrest without bail be issued against them for their arrest. On 23.12.85 the same Inspector of Police, C.I.D. prayed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate that Section 120(B) I, P. C. be added in the case as investigation revealed that there was conspiracy with petitioner No. 1, Purushottam Lal Agarwal, under whose leadership the offence was committed and there were sufficient materials and evidence against him and few other persons who were absconding. The impugned orders were passed on these two applications.

4. Mr. R. D. Lall, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the F.I.R. may or may not have disclosed any ingredients of any of the offences, but the two petitioners are absolute strangers to those allegations having nothing to do what­soever with the alleged theft of R/R and release of consignment. This being the position their arrest and harassment by police have affected their liberty and hence the proceeding in the G. R. case and the corresponding P.S. case must be quashed in so far as the two petitioners are concerned. Counsel further submits that the petitioner No. 2 is a student of Matriculation class and has since surrendered at Gauhati and obtained bail. In so far as peti­tioner No. I is concerned, he is old man of mare than 60 years and is having heart ailment and has not so far surrendered before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gauhati.

5. On perusal of the F.I.R. it cannot be said that it does not disclose the ingredients of an offence under Section 420/379 I.P.C.. Mr. Lall also does not submit that it discloses no such offence. What the learned counsel objects to is the complicity of the petitioners and the addition of Section 120 B, I.P.C. In view of the report submitted to the learned Chief Judicial Magis­trate. Gauhati by the Inspector of Police, C.I.D. it is difficult to hold at this stage that the petitioner No. 1 is a complete stranger to the alleged offence, inasmuch as it reports of cons­piracy and the offence being committed under the leadership of petitioner No. 1, Purushottam Lall Agarwalla. If that report is to be acted upon, the orde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document