Rajendra Kumar Pincha vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail. The Court found that apart from the allegation that the petitioner purchased some quantity of areca nuts from one Kushal Agarwal, there were no other incriminating materials in the Case Diary to connect the petitioner with the offence of hijacking of a truck and theft of areca nuts. Therefore, the Court was of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary for the purpose of investigation. The petitioner was granted pre-arrest bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety, subject to conditions including appearing before the Investigating Officer within one week, fully cooperating with the investigation, and not inducing, threatening, or promising any person acquainted with the facts of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, Rajendra Kumar Pincha, an established businessman dealing in areca nuts and paying GST, sought pre-arrest bail in connection with Dharamtul P.S. Case No. 08/2024, under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner's house was searched, but nothing incriminating was found. The prosecution alleged hijacking of a truck and theft of areca nuts. The petitioner argued he purchased areca nuts from Kushal Agarwal and was ready to cooperate with the investigation. The State contended that the entire stolen articles were yet to be recovered and custodial interrogation might be necessary.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, given the allegations of hijacking and theft of areca nuts? The petitioner argued that he is an established businessman who pays GST and that no incriminating material was found at his residence. He asserted his willingness to cooperate with the investigation if granted pre-arrest bail. The State argued that serious allegations of hijacking and theft were made against the accused, and the case was at the investigation stage, necessitating custodial interrogation for the recovery of stolen articles and to ascertain the full extent of the crime. The State also highlighted that the entire stolen articles were yet to be recovered.