[ad_1]
Gauhati High Court
Sri Chandan Poddar vs The State Of Assam on 11 August, 2025
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010165972025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/1841/2025
SRI CHANDAN PODDAR
S/O- LT. NIRDEV PODDAR,
R/O- RAILWAY COLONY,
P.S. CHANDMARI, KALIBARI, BAMUNIMAIDAM, GUWAHATI-21, KAMRUP
(M), ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE PP,ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D CHAKRABARTY, MS D.CHAKRABARTY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS
ORDER
Date : 11.08.2025
Heard Mr. D. Chakrabarty, learned counsel assisted by Ms. D. Chakrabarty,
learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
Page No.# 2/4
2. This petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner, namely, Chandan Poddar, has prayed for
granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Chandmari P.S.
Case No. 37/2025, registered under Section 287/318(2)/317(2) of BNS, 2023
r/w Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 & Section 23(a) of Petroleum
Act, 1934.
3. The gist of the allegation in the Ejahar dated 15.02.2025 is that the
petitioner illegally prossessing approximately 1200 ltr. SK Oil in Bamunimaidan
Ralway Colony Hut, Kalibari Quarter No. 812.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except 317(2) of BNS,
the other sections are bailable including the section 6 of Petroleum Act, 1934. It
is also submitted that all the ingredients of the non-bailable provisions are not
attracted in the facts. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s father had a
genuine kerosene license and in respect of the same, some documents have
been annexed. Though, after death of the father of the petitioner, petitioner
sometimes used to visit the oil depot to collect oil and sell and in this regard
some stocks are accumulated.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary and
submits that the investigation also reveals on similar lines and it is not indicated
any aspect of theft; though oil in question taken in that manner would be illegal
act as per other law. The petitioner was also granted interim bail by the learned
trial court, pursuant to which, the petitioner appeared before the investigating
officer and his statement recorded. However, later on, the said bail petition
came to be rejected.
Page No.# 3/4
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties. I have also perused the case diary.
7. In the backdrop of these contentions, the materials prima facie indicate
that Section 317(2) of BNS pertaining to knowingly receiving property does not
seem to be attracted herein this case.
8. Considering this aspect as well other aspects indicated above, this Court
finds it fit to allow the petition.
9. Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the petitioner,
named above, in connection with Chandmari P.S. Case No. 37/2025, registered
under Section 287/318(2)/317(2) of BNS, 2023 r/w Section 7 of Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 & Section 23(a) of Petroleum Act, 1934, he shall be
released on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- with a suitable surety of the
like amount, to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.
10 The direction for pre-arrest bail is subject to the conditions that the
petitioner:
(a) shall co-operate with the remaining investigation;
(b) shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police
officer.
11. Violation of any condition shall entail cancellation of pre-arrest bail.
12. The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.
Page No.# 4/4
13. Send back the case diary.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
[ad_2]
Source link