Gauhati High Court
Samsuddin Ali @ Sahil Shek vs The State Of Assam on 20 December, 2021
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010217492021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./764/2021
SAMSUDDIN ALI @ SAHIL SHEK
S/O SULAB ALI
R/O WARD NO. 3,
THANA ROAD, MATHIKHOLA
P.S. BARPATHAR
DIST. GOLAGHAT, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
TO BE REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. T SOM
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
:: BEFORE ::
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN
ORDER
20.12.2021
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Addl. Public
Prosecutor representing the State.
The petitioner herein is convicted in G.R. Case No.451/2018 (PRC
Page No.# 2/3
No.209/2019) under Section 292 IPC r/w Section 67/67(A) of I.T. Act on
03.02.2020.
On the day of passing of judgment and order, the petitioner sought for time
to prefer an appeal which was allowed by the court but the accused did not turn up
before the trial court, neither submitted any document to show that he has
preferred an appeal. The learned trial court initially did not pass any adverse order
against the accused due to lock-down under COVID-19 from the year 2020 and
later part of the year, the court issued summons to the accused to appear before
the court when the normal functioning of the court will resume but as the accused
did not turn up when the court work restored, so the learned trial court issued the
warrant of arrest on 26.03.2021 and subsequent dates till 18.11.2021, with further
direction to O/C concerned to apprehend the accused.
Challenging the aforesaid order dated 26.03.2021 and 18.11.2021, the
petitioner preferred the present petition under Section 482 CrPC with a prayer to
set aside the warrant of arrest issued against him, to enable him to prefer an
appeal.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that due to sudden
outbreak of COVID-19 in the year 2020 and the lockdown declared since March,
2020, there was no communication with his engaged counsel and he was also
unaware about the court's order. It contends that due to compelling circumstances,
the petitioner was unable to appear before the court and he is contemplating to
prefer an appeal so that he may be given a chance to remain on previous bail by
quashing the order of issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest.
I have heard the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
the learned counsel for the State respondent.
On perusal of the documents coupled with the content of the petition, it
Page No.# 3/3
reveals that the accused was convicted far back as on 03.02.2020 and although he
begged to the court to allow him to remain on previous bail with a submission to
prefer an appeal but he did not turn up before the trial court even after the court
work resumed after the lockdown period. It is a lapse on his part by not informing
the court in time and he cannot take the plea of lockdown which was prevailing
only in the last year. The court showing some leniency, initially issued summons to
him and only in this year the court has issued non-bailable warrant of arrest
against him because of absence for a long period, when the appeal period has
already elapsed.
Having regard to the entirety of the matter, there being no any illegality in
the order so passed by the ld. trial court, no interference is called for into the
impugned orders. However, in view of the submission, the petitioner is at liberty to
prefer an appeal subject to limitation period. The petitioner will appear before the
learned trial court on the next date so fixed on 23.12.2021 with a necessary
application and the learned trial court will decide the same in accordance with law.
For the ends of justice, till his appearance, execution of warrant of arrest is hereby
stayed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
