Gauhati High Court
Ashis Kumar vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 2 August, 2024
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010133602024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/627/2024
ASHIS KUMAR,
S/O LATE ALBET KUMAR,
VILL.- ORANGAJULI,
P.S.- DIMAKUCHI,
DIST.- UDALGURI, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
2:LOK BAHADUR CHETRY
S/O LATE RATNA BAHADUR CHETRY
VILL.- NO. 2 BHOLATAR
P.S.- DIMAKUCHI
DIST.- UDALGURI
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B BARUAH,
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
ORDER
Date : 02.08.2024 [Manish Choudhury, J] Heard Mr. B. Baruah, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Page No.# 2/2 Senior Counsel & Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Ms. M. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1, State of Assam.
2. The instant application is preferred under Section 389[1], Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking suspension of the execution of sentence passed against the applicant-appellant and for his release on bail. The applicant-appellant has preferred the accompanying appeal, CRL.A(J)/135/2023 to challenge a Judgment and Order dated 07.08.2023 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Udalguri in Special [POCSO] Case no. 64/2019 through a learned Legal Aid Counsel. Along with that accompanying appeal, CRL.A(J)/135/2023, the applicant-appellant is also found to be preferred an application under Section 389[1], CrPC seeking making a similar prayer for suspension of the execution of sentence passed against the applicant-appellant and for his release on bail. The said application under Section 389[1], CrPC has been registered as I.A.(Crl.)/1154/2023. The application, I.A.(Crl.)/1154/2023 is pending for consideration.
3. It is found that instant interlocutory application under Section 389[1], CrPC has been filed by the applicant by engaging another counsel despite the pendency of his earlier application under Section 389, CrPC, I.A.(Crl.)/1154/2023.
4. In view of such fact situation we find that the instant interlocutory application is not maintainable. Such filing of an application when a similar application is already pending, is not appreciated.
5. The instant interlocutory application stands dismissed.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant