Sohidul Haque @ Sohi And Anr. vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court held that the accused-petitioners are not entitled to pre-arrest bail. The reasoning was based on the perusal of the case diary, which revealed sufficient incriminating materials against both petitioners. Notably, for petitioner No. 2, Shahidul Hoque, this was a second application for pre-arrest bail, his earlier application having been rejected on August 21, 2018, after the court found sufficient incriminating materials related to the forging of GST challans. The Court concluded that, given these circumstances, it was not a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail. The petition was accordingly rejected and disposed of.

Facts

The petitioners, Md. Sohidul Haque @ Sohi and Shahidul Hoque, sought pre-arrest bail in connection with CID PS Case No. 6/2018. This case was registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the Assam Forest Regulation Act. The alleged offenses include criminal conspiracy, theft, cheating, forgery of documents, and using forged documents as genuine. The State of Assam is the respondent. This was the second pre-arrest bail application for petitioner No. 2, Shahidul Hoque, as his earlier application was rejected on August 21, 2018, due to sufficient incriminating materials found, including the forging of GST challans.

Key Issues

1. Whether the accused-petitioners are entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Cr.PC, considering the nature and gravity of the alleged offenses and the evidence on record? The petitioner's argument, as presented by their counsel, was that they should be granted pre-arrest bail. The respondent, the State of Assam, through the Additional Public Prosecutor, argued against granting pre-arrest bail, highlighting the presence of sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioners. Specifically, the State pointed out that petitioner No. 2 had a previous pre-arrest bail application rejected due to evidence of forging GST challans. The court was asked to consider the case diary and the previous orders in deciding the present application.