Gauhati High Court
Rohit Sharma vs The State Of Assam on 24 August, 2022
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010151802022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/2158/2022
ROHIT SHARMA
SON OF BANWARILAL SARMAH
R/O BARNIHAT P.S. BARNIHAT
DIST. RI-BHOI, MEGHALAYA.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR N J DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
ORDER
24.08.2022
Heard Mr. N. J. Das, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. P.
Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.
Page No.# 2/3
Apprehending arrest in connection with Bokakhat P.S. Case No.
72/2022, under Section 381 of the Indian Penal Code, this application
under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is preferred by
accused/applicant, namely, Rohit Sharma, for grant of pre-arrest bail.
It is to be noted here that the aforesaid Bokakhat P.S. Case No. 72/2022,
under Section 381 of the Indian Penal Code, has been registered on the basis of
one F.I.R., lodged by one Narin Kr. Nimodia on 17.06.2022, to the effect that his
manager, Rohit Sharma, has fled away from his business establishment with a
sum of Rs. 2,10,000/-.
Mr. N. J. Das, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the I.O. has
issued notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. to the father of the applicant
instead of issuing the same to the applicant and on account of non-compliance
of this provision, the applicant is entitled to bail in view of the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation, reported in 2022 Live Law SC 577, and that the
applicant is ready to co-operate with the Investigating Agency and that some
fraudulent activities are being carried out in the petrol pump of the complainant
and he has one video recording with him and to obtain the said video recording,
the complainant has falsely implicated the present applicant here in this case.
On the other hand, Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
submits that the I.O. has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the
applicant and therefore, opposed the petition.
Page No.# 3/3
Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have
carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and
also perused the Case Diary produced before this Court by Mr. Borthakur,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor, with his assistance.
It appears that the I.O. has collected sufficient incriminating materials in
support of the allegation made in the F.I.R. and as such, custodial interrogation
of the applicant cannot be said to be unwarranted here in this case.
In view of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a
fit case where the privilege of pre-arrest bail can be extended to the applicant
and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.
The Case Diary be sent back.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
