Navin @ Nabin Baishnab vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court held that the omission of the applicant's name, Navin @ Nabin Baishnab, from the interim pre-arrest bail order dated March 23, 2023, was due to a typographical error. The Court reasoned that there was no separate discussion regarding the rejection of the prayer for petitioner No. 4, Navin @ Nabin Baishnab, in the original order. Therefore, it was considered a mistake. The Court corrected and modified the order dated March 23, 2023, to include the applicant's name. The interim pre-arrest bail was extended to the applicant on the same terms and conditions as granted to the other co-petitioners, including appearing before the Investigating Officer within one week, cooperating with the investigation, and not inducing or threatening any person acquainted with the facts. The case diary was called for, and the matter was listed for further hearing.

Facts

This matter concerns an interlocutory application filed by Navin @ Nabin Baishnab, seeking correction of an earlier order dated March 23, 2023. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the order granting interim pre-arrest bail to all petitioners in AB No. 1075/2023 inadvertently omitted the name of the present applicant. The original application was for pre-arrest bail for four accused/petitioners in Jogighopa P.S. Case No. 96/2023, registered under Sections 120(B)/420/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, had objected to the bail, citing the FIR allegations of submitting fake GST challans and the necessity of custodial interrogation. The Court, considering the submissions and the original order, found it to be a typographical error.

Key Issues

1. Whether the name of the applicant, Navin @ Nabin Baishnab, should be incorporated into the interim pre-arrest bail order dated March 23, 2023, due to a typographical omission? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that their name was mistakenly left out of the interim pre-arrest bail order granted to other co-petitioners in AB No. 1075/2023, and sought modification of the said order to include their name. They contended that they are innocent businessmen dealing in clothes and are falsely implicated. Revenue/State's Argument: The State argued that the names of the accused/petitioners are mentioned in the FIR, and the allegations of submitting fake GST challans necessitate custodial interrogation, thus objecting to the grant of pre-arrest bail.