BIREN HALOI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P. Sharmah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent, State of Assam. This application under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) has been filed praying for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner viz. Sri Biren Haloi, apprehending his arrest, in connection with Gorchuk Police Station Case no. 165/2020, registered under Section 120(B)/379/411, Indian Penal Code (IPC).

(2.) The allegations in the First Information Report (FIR) are, inter alia, to the effect that 30 liters of diesel from 2 drums and 8 empty drums were seized when the 4 (four) accused persons, named in the FIR, were in the process of taking out diesel from a tanker parked in the premises of a vehicle repairing garage, which belongs to the petitioner. The petitioner was not at the place of occurrence when those drums and diesel along with the tanker were seized at about 7-30 a.m. on 02.03.2020. The 4 (four) accused persons named in the FIR viz. Mahendra Prasad Mahato, Ram Uday Mahato, Milan Boro and Kukud Das were arrested from the place of occurrence.

(3.) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that though he is the owner of said Rajlaxmi Garage, because of his deteriorating health condition, he had handed over the management of the garage to his manager, Sri Kukud Das, who was arrested on 02.03.2020. As regards his health condition, the petitioner has shown medical documents. It is submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor that he has received the concerned case diary. He has further submitted that pursuant to the interim order dated 25.06.2020, the petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Officer (I.O.) of the case and after interrogation, his statement has been duly recorded and the same is available in the case diary. It is further submitted by him that as the petitioner is cooperating with the investigation of the case by joining the investigation, custodial interrogation of the petitioner for carrying out further investigation of the case is not necessary, provided he continues to extend his cooperation in the investigation of the case by appearing before the I.O. of the case as and when his appearance is called for.