LAWS(GAU)-1985-6-5

ARUN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

Decided On June 12, 1985
ARUN SHARMA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ASSAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner of this application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, shortly the Code, is a Commerce Graduate from Gauhati University and has been temporarily looking after the day to day management of the Hotel Nandan owned by Mis. Shyam Udyog (P) Limited. On 2.5.1985 at 11.55 p.m. one Dwijen Phookan lodged a First Information Report (Annexure-I to the application) at the Pan Bazar Police Station, Gauhati stating in with reference to the information lodged thereat same morning regarding the missing of his daughter Smt. Smita Phukan, that she had been recovered from the Hotel Nandan, G.S. Road at about 6.30 p.m. from the unlawful custody of one Shri Abhijeet Choudhury, who was a receptionist of the said hotel and Shri Himanshu Sharma, who was known to be a Director of the said hotel. It was further stated that the girl had been kidnapped and enticed away from the lawful custody of her parents by Shri Abhijeet Choudhury in collusion with Shri Himanshu Sharma and other persons who kept her concealed in the said Hotel Nandan. The girl was stated to be a minor of about 14 years and a student of Class VIII. The aforesaid FIR. was forwarded to the Paltan Bazar Police Station whereunder Hotel Nandan fell vide G.D. Entry No. 54 of 2.5.84. The Paltan Bazar Police Station vide G.D. Entry No. 87 of 2.5.85 forwarded the FIR. to the Chandmari Police Station as the complainants house fell within its jurisdiction. The Chandmari Police Station thereupon registered its case No. 84/85 under Section 366A I.P.C. It is stated in this application that the said Shri Abhijit Choudhury who was the receptionist was forcibly taken away from the premises of the Hotel Nandan at about 5.30 p.m. on 2.5.85 and was produced before the Chief. Judicial Magistrate, Gauhati on 3.5.85 and the Forwarding Report (Annexure II to the application) of the Officer-in-Charge Chandmari Police Station stated that at about 6.30 p.m. the victim girl was recovered from the unlawful custody of the accused person by the complainant.

(2.) The petitioner states that he happened to be present in the hotel on 2.5.85 in connection with the day to day management of the hotel and since the date of occurrence the police has been making discreat enquiries about him and his brother in connection with the said case and therefore he has reasons to believe that he may be arrested in connection with the above case. He further states that he hails from a very reputed family of Gauhati. His grand father is an Advocate and his father is a reputed Chartered Accountant and his family members own both movable and immovable properties at Gauhati and other places. He also states that there is absolutely no chance of his tampering evidence or hampering the investigation and he shall make himself available as and when required by the police and he shall not in any manner make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquaints or connected with the case and he undertakes to abide by any condition, direction or order from the Court.

(3.) Mr. J.P. Bhattacharjee, the learned Advocate General, Nagaland for the petitioner submits: The petitioners apprehension of arrest in connection with the case is reasonable. He hails from a respectable family. His grand father being an Advocate, his father being a reputed Chartered Accountant and his brother the Managing Director of MIs. Shyam Udyog (P) Limited, there is no likelihood of his evading the process of the criminal court or not attending the trial or in any way tampering with the evidence or witnesses of the case. If he is kept in custody for some days before granting bail he will immeasurably suffer in prestige and business goodwill. His name does not appear in the FIR. and Shri Abhijeet Choudhury whose name appears has already been granted bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Gauhati on 7.5.85 till 18.5.85. The petitioner has come before this Court with the prayer for anticipatory bail which may be granted. The petitioner has not been arrested so far because of the interim order passed by this Court on 10.5.85.