Horen Sing Bey @ H Engjai vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 1315 Gua

                                                                                Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010061452021




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : Crl.Pet./221/2021

            HOREN SING BEY @ H ENGJAI
            S/O. JOYSING BEY, R/O. DOLONI SARTHE TERON GAON, P.S.
            BAITHALANGSO, DIST. WEST KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM.



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
            REP. BY PP, ASSAM.

            2:KUNDANMAL SHARMA
             S/O. JORMAL SHARMA
             C/O. M/S KHANDELMAL TRADERS
             MAIN ROAD
             P.S. DIPHU
             DIST. KARBI ANGLONG

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. D DAS SR. ADV

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM




                                   BEFORE
                     HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR

                                          ORDER

Date : 05.04.2021

Hearing held through remote video conference.

Heard Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N.J. Dutta, Page No.# 2/3

learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State respondent.

By this petition under Sections 482/397/401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for setting aside and quashing the impugned charge-sheet No. 136/2015, dated 31.12.2015 under Sections 448/364(A)/120B/368/302/34 of the IPC arising out of Sessions Case No. 7/2021 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu corresponding to G.R. Case No. 447/1997 in connection with Diphu P.S. Case No. 193/1997.

Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the alleged occurrence took place about 18 years 5 months ago and the investigating authority filed the charge-sheet belatedly on 31.12.2015. Mr. Mahajan further submits that although the charge- sheet was filed on 31.12.2015 the learned Court below took cognizance of the offences against 29 number of accused persons apparently after 2 years and 6 months which amounts to violation of right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In this context, the learned counsel has cited the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court-

i) Vakil Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2009) 3 SCC 355;

ii) Santosh De Vs. Archna Guha & Ors., reported in 1994 Supp (3) SCC 742;

iii) Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration & Anr., reported in 1996 (5) Supreme 742; and

iv) Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr., in Criminal Appeal No. 714/2019.

Mr. Mahajan also submits that there is no chance of conviction of the accused persons in the case as the entire prosecution case rests on the statement of the co-accused persons.

Mr. N.J. Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that as charges are yet to be framed in the case, the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is brought prematurely.

In view of the above submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and perusal of the instant record this Court is of the opinion that the grounds cited by the petitioner in the instant petition may be raised before the learned Court below at the time of consideration of the charges against the petitioner.

Accordingly, the petitioner is hereby given liberty to raise the grounds cited in the instant petition before the learned Court below at the time of consideration of the charges against the petitioner.

Page No.# 3/3

With the above direction, the petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant