GAHC010150682021 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/2877/2021 JAYANTA DAIMARY S/O ANIL DAIMARY VILL- NO. 3 DAKSHIN CHEKHADARI (KUKURMARA)
P.O. RAJAPARA P.S. BOKO, DIST. KAMRUP (R)
VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M J BARUAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR
ORDER
05.04.2022 Heard Mr. M.J. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.
Borthakur, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State respondent.
This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is filed for granting the privilege of pre-
arrest bail to the petitioner, namely Jayanta Daimary apprehending arrest in connection with Abhayapuri P.S. Case No. 218/2021 registered u/s
448/341/325/354/378/511/506 of the IPC.
The Case diary, as called for, is placed before the Court.
The FIR lodged by the Regional Project Engineer, Lower Assam Region, AFDC Ltd., Abhayapuri reveals the allegation inter-alia, that the petitioner, who is the Project Manager of AFDC Ltd. and suspended from service since 09.03.2021 vide letter No. AFDC/751/2021/6698-6704 has not vacated his office and has been using his office as a club by drinking alcohol with some antisocial gundas and misbehaving with women employees. It is alleged that the petitioner assaulted one employee of the AFDC Ltd. on 15.10.2020. Allegation is also to the effect that the petitioner misbehaved with one Mrs. Minu Singha, Asstt. Project Manager and other women workers and attempted to rape on 02.03.2021 and has been threatening the employees with some gundas. A perusal of the case diary reveals that the petitioner, who is the Project Manager in Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. has been under suspension for alleged service misconduct. He even allegedly assaulted some office staff in drunken condition, but no injury report is available. Further, the alleged victim woman has not turned up before the investigating officer to record her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. There is, of course, some amount of incriminating material against the petitioner.
However, on a detail scrutiny of the statements of the witnesses, this Court finds that in the backdrop of facts and circumstances, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be warranted.
Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the petitioner, named above, shall be released on pre-arrest bail, in connection with the above noted case on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject, of course, to the following conditions:
(i) That the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within th
10 days, failing which on and from the 11 day, this pre-arrest bail order shall have no force;
(ii) 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 any police officer; and (iii) That the petitioner shall refrain from committing any offences similar to the one of which he is accused or suspected of commission.
Return the case diary.
This disposes of the anticipatory bail application.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant