Hari Prasad Pandiya vs. The State Of Assam
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Hari Prasad Pandiya, sought pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, apprehending arrest in connection with Tezpur Police Station Case No. 198/2024 (G.R. Case No. 566/2024) under Sections 454/380 of the IPC. The FIR was lodged by the owner of SR Granites and Tiles, alleging theft of Rs. 1,35,000/- and some tiles from his showroom on 14.04.2024. The senior staff in charge of the showroom went missing from 15.04.2024 to 16.04.2024. The petitioner, who owns another tiles showroom and has GST registration, was granted interim bail on 21.05.2024. The State conceded that there were no direct incriminating materials against the petitioner in the case diary. The petitioner's statement was recorded, he has not violated bail conditions, is a local resident, not a flight risk, and is willing to abide by any conditions.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail. The Court considered that there were no direct incriminating materials against the petitioner in the Case Diary, as conceded by the State. The petitioner's statement had been recorded, and he had not violated any bail conditions. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner is a local resident, not a flight risk, and is willing to abide by any stringent bail conditions. Consequently, the interim bail granted to the petitioner on 21.05.2024 was made absolute on the same terms and conditions. The anticipatory bail application was disposed of accordingly.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the CrPC in connection with Tezpur Police Station Case No. 198/2024 (G.R. Case No. 566/2024) under Sections 454/380 of the IPC? The petitioner argued that he is the owner of another tiles showroom with GST registration and that there are no direct incriminating materials against him in the case diary. He also highlighted that he has not violated any bail conditions, is a local resident, not a flight risk, and is willing to comply with any imposed conditions. The respondent State, through the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, conceded that there were no direct incriminating materials in the Case Diary against the petitioner.
Sections Cited
Section 438
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER Date : 02-08-2024 Heard Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Hari Prasad Pandiya, who has filed this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with prayer for pre-arrest bail as he is apprehending arrest in connection with Tezpur Police Station Case No. 198/2024 (G.R. Case
Page No.# 2/3 No. 566/2024) under Sections 454/380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short).
The owner of the SR Granites and Tiles lodged an FIR that in the afternoon of 14.04.2024 he received an information relating to something suspicious in his showroom. When the informant asked his staff to check, he was informed that everything was normal but the CCTV camera was not working. Then, he along with his brother-in-law and cousin reached his showroom at about 4 PM and found that cash amounting to Rs.1,35,000/- (Rupees One Lac Thirty Five Thousand) as well as some tiles design were missing. Next morning from 15.04.2024, the senior staff who was in-charge of over all activities in the showroom was found missing from the showroom till 16.04.2024. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the present is the owner of another tiles showroom and he has also his GST registration certification, which is marked as Annexure-2 of the petition.
Heard Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent State. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that there are no direct incriminating materials in the Case Diary against the present petitioner.
The present petitioner was granted interim bail vide order dated 21.05.2024 passed by a Coordinate bench of this Court.
I have scrutinized the Case Diary. The statement of the present petitioner has been recorded. The petitioner has not violated any bail conditions. The petitioner is a local resident and he is not a flight risk. The petitioner is willing to abide by any stringent bail conditions if imposed upon him.
Page No.# 3/3
Considering all aspects and in view of my foregoing discussions, the interim order dated 21.05.2024 is hereby made absolute under the same terms and conditions.
In terms of the above observations, this Anticipatory Bail application stands disposed of.
Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Reproduced from the public record of the Gauhati High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.