Gauhati High Court
Safiur Rahman Mollah vs The State Of Assam on 18 January, 2024
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010005532024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./89/2024
SAFIUR RAHMAN MOLLAH
S/O ABDUL LATIF MOLLAH
R/O BRAHMAPUTRA HOUSING COMPLEX BLOCK H, BISNU RABHA PATH,
BHETAPARA, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-781028
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. BHASKAR DUTTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
ORDER
18.01.2024
Heard Mr. B. Dutta, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr. J. Das, learned
counsel for the accused and Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for
the State respondent.
2. This application, under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is preferred by accused, namely,
Page No.# 2/4
Safiur Rahman Mollah, who has been languishing in jail hazot in connection with
Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 09/2023, under Sections
120(B)/419/420/468/471/409 of the IPC, since 12.12.2023, for grant of bail.
3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on
the basis of an FIR lodged by Inspector Chandan Das of Cyber P.S., Panbazar on
03.12.2023. The essence of allegation made in the FIR dated 03.12.2023 is that
during investigation of Cyber P.S. Case No. 12/2023 under Sections
120(B)/419/420 of the IPC read with Sections 66C/66D of the IT Act, 2000,
added Sections 409/468/471 of the IPC, it had been found that some fictitious
mutation orders were passed vide mutation file No. MET/DIS/2022-
23/96042/OMUT and it had also been found that the mutation order was passed
on the basis of fake deed being deed No. 6268/95 dated 31.12.1995, in the
name of buyer Ansar Ali and the name of seller Jatindra Nath Goswami and
Debendra Nath Goswami of Paltan Bazar.
4. Mr. Dutta, learned Senior counsel for the accused submits that this is the
second bail application filed by the accused and the earlier one, being
Bail.Appln. No. 4586/2023 was dismissed on 04.01.2024. Mr. Dutta further
submits that the ground for filing this second application is that at the time of
hearing of the first application, some material parts could not be placed before
this Court and the same are:
(i) The accused was arrested only on the basis of the statement of co-accused,
which according to him is not admissible in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel Vs. State of
Gujarat & Anr., reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 588,
(ii) All the accused were allowed to go on bail by this Court and on the ground
of parity also, the accused is entitled to be released on bail, and
Page No.# 3/4
(iii) The accused has been languishing in jail hazot for the last 37 days and in
the meantime, the investigation might have progressed significantly and that
the accused is ready to cooperate with the investigating agency and will abide
by any condition imposed by this Court, and therefore, it is contended to allow
this application.
5. On the other hand, Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor
submits that some materials are there in the case diary against the accused and
at the stage of investigation, the statement of the co-accused can be taken into
account, and the investigation is going on, and therefore, Mr. Baruah has
opposed the application.
6. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both sides, I have
carefully gone through the application and the documents placed on record and
also perused the case diary with the assistance of Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Addl.
Public Prosecutor.
7. The case diary indicates that the I.O. has examined several witnesses and
also collected some documents and as such, he has achieved significant
progress in the investigation of the case. Though Mr. B. Dutta, the learned
Senior Counsel for the accused submitted that the statement of the co-accused
is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel (supra) , said observation was made while
dealing with an appeal and as such the same would not advance his case.
Indisputably, some of the co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by this
Court.
8. Having considered above, and also considering the submission of learned
Advocates of both sides as well as the progress of investigation, further
custodial detention of the accused seems to be not warranted here in this case,
Page No.# 4/4
and therefore, this Court is inclined to allow the application. It is provided that
on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of like amount, to the
satisfaction of the learned CJM, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, the accused be enlarged
on bail.
9. In terms of above, this application stands disposed of.
10. Case diary be returned.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
