Page No.# 1/4 vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 2428 Gua

                                                                   Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010256912019




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


                                Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/877/2019


            SRI ASHOK KR. BARMAN AND ANR
            S/O LT. PRABHAT BARMAN, R/O VILL. KAITHALKUCHI, UNDER BELSOR
            POLICE STATION IN THE DIST. OF NALBARI, ASSAM.


            2: BINOD BARMAN
             S/O LT. PRABHAT BARMAN
             R/O VILL. KAITHALKUCHI
             UNDER BELSOR POLICE STATION IN THE DIST. OF NALBARI
            ASSAM


            VERSUS


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


            2:PULAKESH DEKA
             S/O SRI UMESH CH. DEKA
             R/O VILL. SANDHA
             P.O. SANDHA P.S. NALBARI
             DIST. NALBARI
            ASSAM


Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. A M BORA


Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
                                                                       Page No.# 2/4




                                     BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA

                                     ORDER

Date : 05-10-2021

Heard Mr. D Talukdar, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. RR Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State respondent as well as Mr. BM Deka, learned counsel appearing for the informant.

This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 389 of the Cr.PC seeking bail of the applicants 1. Sri Ashok Kr. Barman and 2. Sri Binod Barman, who are in jail custody in view of the order of conviction and sentence recorded against them vide the judgment and order, dated 29.06.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari in Sessions Case No. 07/2010. The applicants are convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with a default clause for commission of offence under Section 304(B) of the IPC as well as rigorous imprisonment on some other counts which are to run concurrently, meaning thereby that the rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years will cover those sentences also.

I have perused the written objection filed by the State respondent against the prayer for bail of the applicants. Also taken note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants.

I have perused the evidence on record to find out justification, if any, for releasing the applicants on bail.

On perusal of the impugned judgment and order and the evidence of the witnesses, it transpires that PW6 and PW7, Putul Deka and Babita Deka Page No.# 3/4

respectively, are the witnesses, who have thrown light on the facts of the case as they have heard about the torture meted out to the deceased by the petitioner from the deceased herself. The entire judgment is found to have been based on the evidence of PW6 and PW7. Although the evidence of the other witnesses are also discussed yet, this Court finds that the material evidence is led in the instant case by PW6 and PW7. The evidence of the PW6 and PW7, taken as a whole and read in combination, makes it appear that the allegation of subjecting the deceased Sumi to torture is against all the members of the family, including the present appellants/applicants. But, on a careful scanning of the evidence, it is found that the accusation is basically directed against the applicant No. 1 Sri Ashok Kr. Barman, i.e., the husband of the deceased, and such fact has been subscribed by the evidence of PW7, Babita Deka, who has categorically deposed that she has asked the appellant/applicant No. 1 to stop torturing the deceased Sumi.

On the other hand, as indicated above, all the members of the family are implicated generally. But, the specific evidence is found to have been available against the applicant No. 1 Sri Ashok Kr. Barman.

In the considered view of this Court, to curtail the liberty of a person and to put him in custody, specific implicating evidence is required. However, until the hearing of the connected Criminal Appeal No. 282/2019 takes place, on a tentative view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant/applicant No. 2 Sri Binod Barman is entitled to the grant of bail in the absence of specific evidence against him.

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the appellant/applicant No. 1 Sri Ashok Kr. Barman is rejected and the applicant/appellant No. 2 Sri Binod Barman is granted bail.

Page No.# 4/4

The learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari shall release the appellant/applicant No. 2, Sri Binod Barman, on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with a suitable surety of the like amount to his satisfaction.

The learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari, shall be at liberty to put any condition(s), considered appropriate by him at the time of releasing the appellant/applicant No. 2, Sri Binod Barman, on bail. This interlocutory application stands disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant