GAUHATI HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON ADITYA HARALALKA V/S THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR

GUWAHATI, India, Dec. 25 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Nov. 25:

1. Heard Mr. S Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. P Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam and Mr. R Ali, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2.

2. This is an application under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 read with Section 442 of Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 and Section 528 of Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for setting aside the order dated 31.10.2024 passed by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in connection with Hatigaon P.S Case No. 264/2023 under Section 406/420/419 of IPC and for cancellation of the bail granted to the opposite party No. 2.

3. The respondent No. 2 was arrested on 30.10.2024 in connection with the aforesaid case and he was granted bail on the next day i.e. 31.10.2024 by the impugned order of the said date and by way of this revision, the petitioner/informant seeks the interference of this Court with the aforesaid order which would result in the cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent No. 2.

4. As far as the stage of the case is concerned, the charge-sheet has already been submitted on 19.02.2025.

5. The brief facts of the case as reflected in the instant petition may be noted. That the petitioner's company is engaged, inter alia, in the manufacturing and selling of poultry feeds. Sometime in the year 2021, on the representations made by the opposite party no. 2, the petitioner's company decided to expand its business in Northeast region and to that effect, the petitioner company wanted to enter into an agreement with the opposite party no. 2 to run the operations in the Northeast region. However, the opposite party no. 2 expressed his inability to enter into an agreement as he was working in CID, Assam. Such being the position, he suggested the name of Mrs. Dipsikha Choudhury, who was competent to handle the operation for the Northeast region of the petitioner company. Moreover, the opposite party no. 2 assured that though he cannot enter into an agreement, he along with Mrs. Dipsikha Choudhury would manage the entire operation of the Northeast region. On 19.04.2021, based on the representation made by the opposite party no. 2, the Petitioner's company executed a Consultant Engagement Agreement with Mrs. Dipshika Choudhury with an understanding that she would oversee the entire operations of Northeast region including but not limited to running and the managing the day-to-day affairs of company at Guwahati.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqHaQm59Phy%2F1CaAZRziG1lTpP9K4NRW3T%2Fzj75uHUvAF&caseno=Crl.Rev.P./512/2024&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010271932024&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.