Mere Pendency of Appeal Does Not Bar Eviction Suit – Res Judicata Not Attracted Where Issues Are Not Identical: Andhra Pradesh High Court Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right under Article 21: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail Despite Recovery of Commercial Quantity Encroachments on River Puramboke Cannot Be Legalised or Protected Under the Guise of Long President was deemed to know that the property vested with the Municipal Council, yet failed to protect it: Karnataka High Court Upholds Disqualification of Municipal President for Misconduct Once the Term of Committee Ends, Right to Vote Ceases — Even if Name Remains in Voter List: Gujarat High Court Treating Equals Unequally Violates Article 14: Bombay High Court Strikes Down IOCL's Tiebreaker rule Preferring Younger Candidate in Tender Selection Mere Harassment Over Loan Recovery Not Abetment to Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in Vineet Kundu Case Taxpayer Cannot Be Penalized For Department's Mistake In Deposit Of GST — Allahabad High Court Directs NOIDA To Compensate The Taxpayer For Wrongful Imposition Of Tax And Penalty “When Large-Scale Fraud Vitiates Selection, En Masse Cancellation Is Inevitable: Supreme Court Validates Quashing of WBSSC 2016 Recruitment Reopening Based on Wrong Mutual Fund is No Reopening at All — Gujarat High Court Quashes Income Tax Notice for Lack of Nexus Between Allegation and Actual Transaction Exceeding Official Duty Does Not Automatically Remove Section 197 CrPC Protection: Supreme Court Quashed Proceedings Against Police Officials Possession Of A Higher Qualification Cannot Substitute The Qualification Prescribed Under  Rules: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection Of Candidate Without Required Lascar’s Licence Dismissal for Default Without Considering COVID Restrictions Was Illegal: Supreme Court Section 256 CrPC Does Not Mandate Automatic Acquittal On Complainant’s Absence — Judicial Satisfaction Is Mandatory: Supreme Court

Gauhati High Court: Interim Anticipatory Bail Made Absolute, Upholding Right to Liberty and Custodial Interrogation Evaluation

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Gauhati High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita, reaffirmed the importance of safeguarding individual liberties while weighing the necessity of custodial interrogation in a criminal case. The court’s decision, dated 19.07.2023, pertained to a petition for anticipatory bail filed by Ruhul Amin Laskar in connection with Hailakandi Police Station Case No. 05/2023, which involved serious allegations of restraint, attack, and theft under Sections 341, 379, 294, 326, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The court, represented by Advocate Mr. H. I. Choudhury for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State, engaged in a thoughtful deliberation on whether to make the interim anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner absolute after the charge-sheet had been laid by the Investigating Officer. The court cited relevant judgments from the Supreme Court, including “Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra” and “Bharat Chaudhary and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.,” which emphasized tahe need to consider the gravity of the offense and the requirement for custodial interrogation when evaluating an anticipatory bail application.

The High Court, in its ruling, acknowledged that the mere grant of interim anticipatory bail did not automatically mandate the surrender of the accused after the charge-sheet was filed. Furthermore, the court relied on recent Supreme Court decisions, “Sushila Aggarwal and Ors. Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi and Anr.” And “Dr. Rajesh Pratap Giri vs. State of U.P. and Anr.,” asserting that an accused who had been granted anticipatory bail would remain at liberty until the trial unless specific circumstances necessitated a limitation on the bail period.

Based on careful examination and considering the absence of any misuse of liberty during the interim anticipatory bail period, the court exercised its discretionary power under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and made the interim anticipatory bail granted to Ruhul Amin Laskar absolute. The court’s ruling ensured that the petitioner would continue to be protected from arrest, subject to certain conditions attached to the interim order.

Date of Decision: 19.07.2023

RUHUL AMIN LASKAR vs THE STATE OF ASSAM

Similar News