Gauhati High Court
Md. Rashidul Islam vs The State Of Assam on 6 January, 2021
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010183192020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2873/2020
MD. RASHIDUL ISLAM
S/O ABED ALI, R/O VILL-PATEKIBORI, P.O.-MAYANG, P.S.-MAYANG, DIST-
MORIGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782411
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D J HALOI
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR
ORDER
Date : 06-01-2021
Heard Mr. D.J. Haloi, learned counsel for the accused petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.
Sarma, learned P.P., Assam appearing for the State respondent.
By this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, namely Md. Rashidul Islam
has prayed for grant of bail in connection with Mayong P.S. Case No. 15/2020, registered
u/s 365/34 of the IPC and added Sections 302/201 of the IPC.
Page No.# 2/3
The scanned copy of the case record is placed before the Court.
Mr. D.J. Haloi, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner, submits that the
accused has been behind the bar for about 1 (one) year in connection with the case, where
the police submitted the charge-sheet on 21.04.2020 and charges were framed on
19.08.2020, but no prosecution witness has been examined till date despite fixing 5 (five)
dates for the purpose. Mr. Haloi further submits that the learned trial Court and this Court had
rejected his bail applications. Mr. Haloi pertinently referring to the ratio of the judgment
rendered in Sanjay Chandra Vs. C.B.I., reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40, vehemently submits that
the accused has been languishing in jail without any possibility of speedy trial of the case and
as such, subject to any condition, he may be directed to be released on bail.
Opposing the bail application, Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits
that the earlier bail application of the accused was rejected by this Court by a well reasoned
order.
The case relates to allegations of abduction and murder of the informant's son by the
present prime accused and others.
A perusal of the case record reveals that the present accused and another are charged
under Sections 120B/302/365/201/34 of the IPC vide order, dated 19.08.2020. It is noticed
that the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon, by order, dated 19.08.2020, rejected the
accused's bail application basically on the grounds of nature of accusation which shows the
barbarous act of murder and his influential position in society to tamper evidence during trial
and further, the possibility of the accused jumping the course of justice. This Court while
rejecting his bail application recorded the reason that once the accused escaped from police
custody by bribing the on duty police personnel and again reattempt to escape from police
custody vide order, dated 19.10.2020, passed in B.A. No. 2004/2020. The case record shows
that the trial of the case could not be expedited as expected to be by the learned trial Court
due to its restricted functioning on account of Covid-19 pandemic, which hindrance is
expected to be over soon. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that in view of
the apprehensions of the learned trial Court and apparent bad conduct of the accused
aforementioned and further, the serious nature of accusation, it may not be safe to release
Page No.# 3/3
the accused on bail at a stage without examining the primary cited witnesses.
Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected.
The learned trial Court is, however, directed to expedite trial of the case, if necessary,
holding day to day hearing and consider the accused's bail application, if filed afresh at an
appropriate stage of trial.
With the above direction, the bail application stands disposed off.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
