Gauhati High Court
Sadek Ali vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 16 March, 2022
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010215532021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/583/2021
SADEK ALI
S/O- LATE MOKSED ALI, VILL.- BARBALA, P.S. AND DIST.- BARPETA,
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
REP. BY THE P.P., ASSAM
2:MD. AFZAL HUSSAIN
S/O- LATE ANOWAR HUSSAIN
VILL.- BARBALA (WEST)
P.O. BARBALA
P.S. AND DIST.- BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN- 781316
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N HOSSAIN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI
ORDER
Date : 16-03-2022
Suman Shyam, J
Page No.# 2/4
Heard Mr. G. Sarowar, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan,
learned Addl. P.P. Assam appearing on behalf of the State.
By filling this I.A. the applicant, viz. Sadek Ali who is the appellant in Crl. A. No.
221/2021 has approached this Court seeking suspension of sentence and to release him
on bail.
By the judgment and order dated 04-02-2021 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Barpeta in connection with Sessions Case No. 114/2014, the applicant along with
seven other persons had been convicted under Section 302/149/325/323 IPC for
committing murder of Anowar Hussain and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for life and also to pay fine.
By order dated 30-11-2021 passed in I.A.(Crl.) No. 184/2021 one of the accused,
viz. Taijuddin Ahmed was allowed to go on bail during the pendency of the criminal
appeal. While passing the order dated 30-11-2021 this Court was of the opinion that
there are material contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses and the prosecution
witnesses had also failed to specifically implicate the applicant.
By referring to the order dated 30-11-2021, Mr. Sarowar submits that similar
consideration be extended in case of the applicant herein as well, since he has also not
been specifically implicated by any of the prosecution witnesses.
Opposing the said submission, Ms. Bhuyan, learned Addl. P.P. Assam has contended
that PW-6 has categorically implicated the applicant and therefore, the present is not a fit
case for allowing him to go on bail.
Page No.# 3/4
However, on a careful examination of the impugned judgment, we find that PW-6
has merely deposed that it was the applicant who had called the deceased from his home
and the incident took thereafter. On a reading of the impugned judgment, we are also of
the prima facie view that there is no specific finding as regards common object of all the
accused persons including the applicant in committing the crime. Whether the evidence
available on record is sufficient to sustain the conviction of the applicant is a matter that
can be looked into during hearing of the appeal. However, having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, the evidence available on record and also for the sake of
maintaining parity in judicial order(s), we are of the view that the applicant has made out
a good case for allowing him to go on bail.
We, accordingly, direct the applicant, viz. Sadek Ali be allowed to go on bail on
furnishing bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one local surety of like amount to the satisfaction of
the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta.
We also make it clear that the applicant shall appear before the learned court
below every fortnightly and he shall not leave the jurisdiction of the District and Sessions
Judge, Barpeta without prior permission.
Violation of any of the above condition(s) may lead to cancellation of the bail.
Before parting with the record, we make it clear that the observations made
hereinbefore are for the limited purpose of disposing of this I.A. and the same shall not
have any bearing during the final hearing of the appeal on merit.
With the above observation, this application stands disposed of.
Page No.# 4/4
JUDGE JUDGE
GS
Comparing Assistant
