Sri Sanjib Mahali @ Sanjib Mahili vs The Sate Of Assam And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 3144 Gua

                                                                       Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010170382020




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

                                 Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/548/2020

            SRI SANJIB MAHALI @ SANJIB MAHILI
            S/O- SRI DURGA MAHALI @ MAHILI
            R/O- NO. 11 LINE, MELENG TEA ESTATE, PS- TEOK, DIST- JORHAT, ASSAM



            VERSUS



            THE SATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
            REPRESENTED BY PP, ASSAM.

            2:SUSHIL CHANDRA TANTI
             SRI SUSHIL CHANDRA TANTI

            S/O- SRI JOYNARAYAN TANTI

            R/O- MELENG TEA ESTATE LINE
            PS- TEOK
            DIST- JORHAT
            ASSAM



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. S C BISWAS

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM




                                  BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
                 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
                                                                                     Page No.# 2/3


                                             ORDER

26.11.2021 (Suman Shyam, J)

Heard Mr. S. C. Biswas, learned counsel for the applicant. We have also

heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Addl. P.P., Assam representing the State.

The applicant herein was convicted under Section 4 of the POCSO Act,

2012 by the judgment dated 10.01.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge,

Jorhat in Special Case No.35/2015 and sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- with default stipulation.

This I.A. has been filed by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 389

of the Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of the applicant's jail sentence and for his

release on bail.

The thrust of the argument advanced by the applicant's counsel pertains

to the alleged discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of the

witnesses examined by the prosecution side so as to contend that the

impugned judgment is unsustainable in law.

The learned State counsel has opposed the bail prayer and has relied upon the

written objection filed in this case to contend that the impugned judgment and

order does not call for any interference in as much as there is no infirmity in the

trial conducted in this case.

After considering the statements made in the I.A. as well as the written

objection and upon perusal of the impugned judgment and order dated

10.01.2019, we are of the opinion that the present is not a fit case for releasing

the applicant on bail. The prayer made in this I.A. therefore, stands rejected.

Page No.# 3/3

The I.A. stands disposed of.

JUDGE JUDGE

Comparing Assistant