Gauhati High Court
Ditimoni Gogoi vs The State Of Assam on 18 November, 2022
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010221582022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2870/2022
DITIMONI GOGOI
W/O LATE JATIN GOGOI
PERMANENT R/O SRIPURIA TINIALI
CHATTESWARI, KALIABARI
P.O. SRIPURIA, P.S. TINSUKIA,
ASSAM AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 804, BLOCK-B, J.S.B.
ANGAN CHOUKIDINGI, P.S. DIBRUGARH, DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B K MAHAJAN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
ORDER
Date : 18-11-2022
Heard Mr. BK Mahajan, learned counsel for the applicant and also
heard Mr. RR Kaushik, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing
for the State of respondent.
Page No.# 2/4
This application, under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., is preferred
by applicant namely- Smti Ditimoni Gogoi, who has been languishing in jail
hajot since 20.10.2022, in connection with ACB PS Case No.50/2022, under
section 120(B) IPC, read with section 7(a)/12 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018).
The said case has been registered on the basis of one FIR
lodged by one Hirok Jyoti Hazarika on 19.10.2022.
The gist of the allegations made in the FIR against the present
applicant is that, in connection with renewal of registration certificate of his
Maruti 800 vehicle, bearing registration No.AS 06 C 8001, she has
demanded a sum of Rs.700 from the complainant and instructed him to pay
the same to one of her associate namely, Shri Pankaj Saikia @ Gogoi and
thereafter a trap has been laid and the amount demanded was recovered
from Shri Pankaj Saikia @ Gogoi.
Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel for the accused submits that the
accused was arrested on 28.10.2022, and since then she is behind the bar
for the last 24 days, and that while effecting arrest of the applicant, the IO
has failed to comply with the direction given in the case of Arnesh Kumar
Vs. State of Bihar & Anr reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, and no notice
under section 41A Cr.P.C was issued to her and 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 SCC Online SC 825, the accused
is entitled to bail on account of non compliance of the provision of section
41A Cr.P.C. Mr. Mahajan, therefore, contended to allow the petition.
On the other hand, Mr. Kaushik, learned Addl. PP has produced
Page No.# 3/4
the case diary before this Court and submits that the IO has collected
sufficient material against the applicant and the allegation are serious in
nature and therefore, Mr. Kaushik has vehemently opposed in allowing this
petition.
Having heard the submission of learned advocates for both the
sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed
on record and also perused the case diary with the assistance of the
learned Addl. PP.
It appears from the case diary that the IO has collected sufficient
materials in support of the allegation made in the FIR. But it appears that
while affecting arrest, the IO has failed to comply with the provisions of
section 41A Cr.P.C.. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender
Kumar Antil (supra) has observed in paragraph 73 (b) That, the
investigating agency and their officers are duty bound to comply with the
mandate of section 41 and 41A of the Code and the directions issued by
this Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra). Any dereliction on their part has to be
brought to the notice of the higher authorities by the court followed by
appropriate action, (c) The courts will have to satisfy themselves on the
compliance of Section 41 and 41A of the Code. Any non compliance would
entitled the accused for grant of bail.
Further, it appears that the accused is a women and she is behind
the bars for the last 24 days and it also appears from the case diary that
material part of the investigation is almost over and in the interest of
investigation her further custodial detention seems to be unwarranted
herein this case. Therefore, this Court is inclined to allow this petition.
Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with
Page No.# 4/4
one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special
Judge, Guwahati, the accused be enlarged on bail.
Return the case diary.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
