Md Abdullah vs The State Of Assam
2022 Latest Caselaw 4394 Gua

                                                                       Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010210872022




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

                               Case No. : Bail Appln./2685/2022

            MD ABDULLAH
            S/O- HAJI MULIB ALI,
            VILL- BORGOOL,
            P.O.- GHULCHERRABAZAR,
            P.S.- NILAMBAZAR,
            DIST.- KARIMGANJ ( ASSAM).



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM
            REP. BY PP, ASSAM.



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. A AHMED

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM




                                   BEFORE
                  HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

                                          ORDER

11.11.2022

Heard Shri A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the accused / petitioner. Also heard Shri K.K. Parashar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. Shri AMS Mazumder, learned counsel has appeared for the informant and has assisted the learned Addl.

Page No.# 2/3

Public Prosecutor, Assam.

The present application has been filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., praying for bail in connection with PRC No. 875/2011 (arising out of GR Case No. 2520/2021) under Section 396/397 of the IPC and added Section 25(1)(B) of the Arms Act, 1959.

It transpires that this Court had considered the same prayer on two earlier occasions and on both occasions, vide order dated 13.05.2022 and 16.08.2022 passed in Bail Application Nos. 590/2022 and 1708/2022 respectively had rejected the prayer for bail.

Shri Ahmed, the learned counsel has submitted that at no stage, the petitioner had defied the process of law and he had surrendered in terms of the order passed by this Court, whereafter, he was taken into custody. He further submits that as on today the petitioner has completed about 248 days and since he had fully cooperated with the investigation, there is no impediment in enlarging him on bail as he is already facing trial. The learned counsel further submits that the trial is delayed only because one of the co-accused is absconding.

The learned counsel has also referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 3386 (Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to the earlier judgments had laid down that while considering a prayer for bail, it is only the prima facie view which needs to be taken and should not be viewed as a punitive measure.

On the other hand, Shri Parashar, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam by drawing the attention of this Court to the earlier order has contended that this Court had taken into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances and had come to a prima facie conclusion to reject the bail prayer of the petitioner. He has also referred to the Status Report and has also taken this Court to the observation made in the earlier Bail Application whereby a request was made to the learned Trial Court to Page No.# 3/3

expeditiously conclude the trial.

After hearing the parties, this Court has noted that in the earlier orders, more specifically in the order dated 16.08.2022, the facts and circumstances were discussed in details after hearing the parties. In paragraph 8 of the order dated 16.08.2022, the following was observed:

"Shri N.K. Kalita, learned counsel who has appeared for the informant has assisted the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and has submitted that the offence involved is a very serious one the deceased was chased by a group of persons and was killed in broad daylight which was witnessed by a number of persons. He further submits that the nature of the injuries corroborates the nature of the arms said to be used in the assault of the deceased."

This Court has also taken into consideration the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balvir Singh v. State of M.P., reported in (2019) 15 SCC 599 wherein minor inconsistencies in the description of the injuries have been directed to be ignored where a large number of accused are involved.

Similar is the view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2010) 13 SCC 657 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 375.

Considering all the aforesaid facts and circumstances and taking a prima facie view, this Court is of the opinion that no case for grant of bail has been made out.

Accordingly, the bail petition stands rejected.

While doing so, the earlier request is reiterated for expeditious conclusion of the trial.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant