Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam
2021 Latest Caselaw 3030 Gua

                                                              Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010133132021




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

                           Case No. : Bail Appln./2238/2021

          PORESH SOREN AND ANR
          S/O LATE PARSURAM SOREN
          R/O VILL- KOILABARI GAON
          P.O. CHABUA
          P.S. CHABUA
          DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM
          PIN-786184

          2: SHANKAR SOREN
           S/O LATE BHABANANDA SOREN
          R/O VILL- KOILABARI GAON
          P.O. CHABUA
          P.S. CHABUA
          DIST. DIBRUGARH
          ASSAM
          PIN-78618

          VERSUS

          THE STATE OF ASSAM
          REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM



Advocate for the Petitioner : MR N N UPADHYAYA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
                                                                                    Page No.# 2/5

                                  BEFORE
                HON'BLR MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
                                            ORDER

23-11-2021

Heard Mr. Nitya Nanda Upadhayaya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Makhan Phukan, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State.

On the basis of an FIR dated 24.05.2020 lodged by one Lakhidhar Gogoi before the Officer-in-Charge of Chabua Police Station, Chabua P.S. Case No.100/2020 under Sections 120(B)/147/148/302 IPC corresponding to G.R. No. 1815/2020 was registered in which the petitioners were arrested on 25.05.2020 and since then they are in custody.

By this application under Section 439 CrPC, the petitioners, namely, 1) Poresh Soren, son of late Parsuram Soren and 2) Shankar Soren, son of late Bhabananda Soren, both are resident of village-Koilabari Gaon, P.S. Chabua, District-Dibrugarh are seeking bail in the said Chabua P.S. Case No.100/2020.

By order dated 14.09.2021 the Court sought for scanned/Photostat copy of said Sessions Case No. 67/2020 arising out of Chabua P.S. Case No. 100/2020, which was accordingly received and perused.

The Investigating authority on completion of investigation of said Chabua P.S. Case No.100/2020 submitted charge-sheet on 10.08.2020 vide charge-sheet No. 47/2020 in the same against 12 accused persons including the present two petitioners, which is now registered as Sessions Case No.67/2020 and pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh.

It is to be placed herein that the learned Trial Court by its order dated 21.10.2020 passed in said Sessions Case No.67/2020 framed charge under Sections 120(B)/147/148/323/302/149 of the IPC against all the 12 accused persons of the case including the two petitioners herein and statements of two prosecution witnesses have already been recorded by the said Court.

Placing the FIR of the case, Mr. Upadhayaya, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the informant was present at the place of incident when the alleged occurrence took place as per his FIR, but the said informant did not name the petitioners in Page No.# 3/5

the same.

It is also urged by Mr. Upadhayaya that though petitioner No.1 earlier filed regular bail application being BA No. 2510/2020 along with two other accused persons of the case, which was rejected on 18.12.2020 on the ground that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioners of the said bail application with regard to their involvement in the alleged crime of committing murder of the deceased as well as causing grievous injuries on the victim on the night of the incident but the petitioner No.2 did not file any regular bail application.

Petitioners submitted that considering their period of detention, the delay in the trial and the materials placed before the Court, the petitioners should be considered for bail. It is also submitted that if they are released on bail, the petitioners shall abide by any terms and conditions imposed upon them by the Court while granting them regular bail and shall make themselves available during the course of trial or any investigation as and when required and/or directed to do so.

In support bail of the petitioners, Mr. Upadhayaya learned counsel, amongst others, relied on State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand, reported in (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240, State of U.P. Vs. Amarmani Tripathi, reported in (2005) 8 SCC 21 and Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40.

Mr. Phukan, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam submitted that the learned Trial Court on 08.02.2021 has already recorded the statements of the victim/injured person in the incident of the case as PW.1 who in his evidence already stated that how the accused persons including the petitioners assaulted him and the deceased. Mr. Phukan also placed before the Court that statement of the said injured victim corroborates with his statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dibrugarh on 07.07.2020. Mr. Phukan from said evidence and statement of PW.1 submitted that both in his statement under Section 164 CrPC as well as in his statement recorded by the learned Trial Judge in the concerned Sessions Case, said injured victim named the petitioners pertaining to their involvement in the case and as to how the petitioners assaulted the deceased and him during the said incident.

From the statement of the PW.2 recorded by the learned Trial Judge on 29.04.2021 Page No.# 4/5

as well as his statement recorded under section 164 CrPC by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dibrugarh on 07.07.2020 Mr. Phukan submitted that the said witness clearly revealed that he saw the petitioners and other accused persons, in an assembly of persons, assaulted the deceased and the injured victim/PW.1 in the relevant occurrence. It is also stated that trial against the petitioners are going on.

Mr. Phukan learned Public Prosecutor, therefore, stated that the petitioners are not entitled for bail in said Sessions Case No. 67/2020 arising out of Chabua P.S. Case No.100/2020. In support of his submissions Mr. Phukan relied on Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. NCT, Delhi, reported in (2001) 4 SCC 280, Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 528, State of U.P. Vs. Kishanpal, reported in (2008) 16 SCC 73, Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 446, State of Bihar Vs. Amit Kumar, reported in (2017) 13 SCC 751, Prasad Shrikant Purohit Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2018) 11 SCC 458 and Sudha Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2021) 4 SCC 781.

Perused and considered the judgments cited by the parties. After hearing the submissions of the parties and on perusal of the records placed before the Court, injuries sustained by the deceased and the injured victim, considering the gravity of the offence and the heinousness of the crime involved in the case, finding sufficient incriminating materials with regard to the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged crime, the Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioners in said Sessions Case No. 67/2020 arising out of Chabua P.S. Case No.100/2020 though they are in custody since 25.05.2020.

Moreover, it is also noticed that though the learned Trial Court initiated recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses in February, 2021; but after recording of evidence in April, 2021, it could not proceed further due to the second wave of Covid-19 and has re-issued summons to the other prosecution witnesses for recording of their evidence.

For the reasons aforesaid, the bail application of the petitioners in said Sessions Case No. 67/2020 arising out of Chabua P.S. Case No.100/2020 corresponding to G.R.1815/2020 stands rejected.

JUDGE Page No.# 5/5

Comparing Assistant