Gauhati High Court
Munram @ Monuram Das vs The State Of Assam on 4 March, 2021
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010025702021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/466/2021
MUNRAM @ MONURAM DAS
S/O SRI NAGEN DAS, R/O VILL-PANBARI ADARSHA, P.O.-BORJURI, P.S.-
BOKAKHAT, DIST-GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN-785612
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. G BORAH
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR
ORDER
Date : 04.03.2021
Heard Ms. G Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. A Begum, learned
Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondents.
By this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, namely, Munram @
Monuram Das has prayed for granting pre-arrest bail apprehending arrest in connection
with Bokakhat P.S. Case No. 369/2018 under Sections 366/371 of the IPC.
The case diary is not received.
Ms. A Begum, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation in the
Page No.# 2/4
case is completed and charge sheet being Bokakhat PS CS No.271/2019, dated 30.11.2019,
has been filed and therefore, the petitioner should exercise his option for regular bail.
At this stage Ms. G Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner's prayer for pre-arrest bail may be considered in the light of the ratio of the
judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal & Ors. vs- State
(NCT of Delhi) & anr. reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1.
I have considered the above submissions made by both sides and have gone through
the above judgment vis-à-vis the facts and circumstances of the case.
A married woman filed an ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge of Bokakhat PS, on
10.08.2018 alleging that the petitioner forcibly abducted her, on 27.10.2017 and took her to
Bangaluru and handed over her to a person in exchange of money and then he fled away.
She somehow managed to flee away from the said place and reached the husband's house
about two months ago.
The petitioner has cited the following grounds for his pre-arrest bail application:
1.That the petitioner was innocent and the police is looking out for him in connection
with the case;
2.That the informant/victim is his cousin brother's wife and she flew to Bangaluru to
search for a private job through the petitioner, who is a driver by profession at Bangaluru;
3. That there is none to look after his ailing mother, who is a psychiatric patient
undergoing treatments in various hospitals; and
4. That as the petitioner is a permanent resident, there is no chance of his
absconding from the course of justice and he undertakes to be present before the police/
court as and when directed.
In view of the above noted grounds cited by the petitioner, I find it apposite to
extract herein below the relevant portion of Section 438 CrPC:-
" 438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest:
"Where any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having
committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for
a direction under this section that in the event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and
that Court may, after taking into consideration, inter-alia, the following factors, namely--
i) the nature and gravity of the accusation;
ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously
undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;
iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and.
iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the
applicant by having him so arrested, either reject the application forthwith or issue an interim
Page No.# 3/4
order for the grant of anticipatory bail;
Provided that, where the High Court or, as the case may be, the Court of Session, has not
passed any interim order under this Sub-Section or has rejected the application for grant of
anticipatory bail."
In paragraph 92.1, in the judgment of Sushila Aggarwal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed:
"92.1. Consistent with the judgment in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State
of Punjab, when a person complains of apprehension of arrest and approaches for order, the
application should be based on concrete facts (and not vague or general allegations) relatable
to one or other specific offence. The application seeking anticipatory bail should contain bare
essential facts relating to the offence, and why the applicant reasonably apprehends arrest,
as well as his side of the story. These are essential for the court which should consider his
application, to evaluate the threat or apprehension, its gravity or seriousness and the
appropriateness of any condition that may have to be imposed. It is not essential that an
application should be moved only after an FIR is filed; it can be moved earlier, so long as the
facts are clear and there is reasonable basis for apprehending arrest."
Undoubtedly , wide discretion has been conferred on the court in the matter of
granting or refusing anticipatory bail, but the same has to be exercised in a judicious manner
and not as a matter of course. Because, the use of the expression 'reason to believe' in
Section 439 (1) CrPC shows that the petitioner may be so arrested or remanded in custody
must be founded on reasonable grounds, that is, grounds to believe existence of a genuine
apprehension, which is the core consideration for grant of pre-arrest bail. However, in the
instant petition, which was filed during the period of investigation and now the case has
entered the post charge-sheet stage, where there is no indication that the court has initiated
any unreasonable coercive steps against him giving rise to a 'reasonable believe' that in the
backdrop of the above cited grounds in the petition, there is sufficient threat or apprehension
to the petitioner's liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
For the above stated reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the petition is devoid of
any merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.
The petitioner is, however, at liberty to approach the trial Court for regular bail if so
advised.
The pre-arrest bail application accordingly stands disposed off.
JUDGE
Page No.# 4/4
Comparing Assistant
