ORDER

22.12.2022 Heard Mr. B. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioners, who are apprehending arrest in connection with Mukalmua P.S. Case No. 551/2022, corresponding to G. R. Case No. 1502/2022, under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. B.

Chowdhury, that the present petitioners are not involved in the alleged offence and nothing has been recovered from their possession nor anyone have seen them while committing the offence of theft of cow, as alleged in the F.I.R. However, as the police personnel are searching for the present petitioners, they have to file the present petition seeking pre-arrest bail. Further, it is submitted that the petitioners met with one Jaynal Abdin at his shop, situated near Kutali Parghat, and the said Jaynal Abdin mislead the informant and the investigating officer, for which, the petitioners with no fault, the police are searching for them and there is every reasonable apprehension that the petitioners may be arrested in connection with this case. However, the petitioners are ready and willing to co-operate with the I.O. for further investigation of the case if they are granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail.

In this context, Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted that the Case Diary does not reveal any specific allegation against the present petitioners. However, some of the witnesses named the present 2 (two) petitioners in the alleged offence and as per them, they have heard about the commission of offence by the present petitioners from one Jaynal Abdin. But, it is the admitted fact that the theft bullock cow have already been recovered, which is reveals from the seizure list of the present case. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the custodial interrogation of the present petitioners may not be necessary in the present case considering the nature of the offence.

After hearing the submissions of learned counsels for both sides, I have perused the Case Diary as well as the case record.

Considering the materials in the Case Diary as well as the nature of offence, viz-a-viz the recovery of the theft cows, I find that custodial interrogation of the present accused/petitioners are not necessary in this case and therefore, I find it a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the accused/applicant.

Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the accused/petitioners, namely, Md. Rahim Badsha & Md. Ainal Hoque @ Ainal Ali, in connection with Mukalmua P.S. Case No. 551/2022, corresponding to G. R. Case No. 1502/2022, under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code, they shall be enlarged on pre-arrest bail on their executing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject to the following conditions:

(i) that the petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer of the case within a period of 1 (one) week from today;

(ii) that the petitioners shall fully co-operate with the investigation of the case and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required in connection with the investigation of the aforesaid P.S. Case; and (iii) that the petitioners 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 The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of in terms above.

The Case Diary be sent back.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant