LAWS(GAU)-2020-3-85

MAYNAL HOQUE Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

Decided On March 20, 2020
Maynal Hoque Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ASSAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner and Mr. B. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. By this application under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) the accused-petitioner namely, Maynal Hoque has prayed for pre-arrest bail, apprehending his arrest, in connection with Chhaygaon Police Station Case No. 1113/2019 (corresponding G.R. Case No. 2782(K)/2019), registered under Sections 406/420/506/34, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) From a perusal of the bail application, it transpires that a lottery was organized under aegis of one Pub Choutala Tarul Milan Yuva Sangha and after the lucky draw of coupons, prizes were announced. One Johirul Islam has lodged a First Information Report (FIR) on 24.11.2019 stating, inter-alia, that he had purchased a number of lucky draw coupons in the said lottery and had emerged winners to receive prizes in respect of 4 (four) such lucky draw coupons. The total amount of prizes was about Rs. 3,30,000/-, but the accused in the said case, Md. Abu Bakkar Siddik had paid him only Rs. 1,30,000/- and an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- had not been paid by Md. Abu Bakkar Siddik. The said FIR has been registered as Chhaygaon Police Station Case No. 1112/2019. Md. Abu Bakkar Siddik is the informant in Chhaygaon Police Case No. 1113/2019, lodged also on 24.11.2019, wherein, he has, inter- alia, alleged that 4 (four) accused persons named therein, including the present accused- petitioner, had conducted the lottery keeping him in dark and received undue benefits from the same. Thereafter, undue demands were made to the informant who was made president of the lottery committee, to give away the prizes by the accused persons, named in the FIR. The present petitioner is one of the accused persons, named in the FIR.

(3.) Pursuant to the interim order dated 27.01.2020, the present accused-petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Officer and his statement has duly been recorded, which is available in the case diary.