Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 11 January, 2024
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010246312023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./1177/2023
ASHAB UDDIN @ ACHAB UDDIN AND ANR
S/O LATE MANUHAR ALI, R/O VILL-BANIARGOOL (CHUTIAN), P.S. AND
DIST-KARIMGANJ, ASSAM
2: MINOI AHMED @ MINHAJ UDDIN @ MONOI @
S/O ABDUL RAHIM
R/O VILL-BANIARGOOL (CHUTIAN)
P.S. AND DIST-KARIMGANJ
ASSA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
2:FOIJUL AHMED
S/O LATE ABDUL JABBAR
VILL-BANIARGOOL (CHUTIAN)
P.S. AND DIST-KARIMGANJ
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
Date : 11.01.2024
Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K.
Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
Page No.# 2/4
This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
read with Section 401 of the said Code read with Article 227 of the Constitution
of India has been filed by the petitioners, namely, 1. Ashab Uddin @ Achab
Uddin and 2. Minoi Ahmed @ Minhaj Uddin @ Monoi impugning the order dated
11.07.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj whereby Non-
bailable Warrant of Arrest were issued against the present petitioners.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
petitioners in Special Sessions Case No. 14/2022, the charge-sheet was laid
against the present petitioners under Sections 342/376/506 of the Indian Penal
Code read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and initially by order dated
09.06.2022, the Trial Court had issued summons to the present petitioners,
fixing 01.09.2022 for their appearance. On the next date i.e., on 01.09.2022,
the petitioners could not remain present and their engaged counsels filed a
petition showing cause of their absence and the said petition was allowed and
the next date was fixed for appearance of the present petitioners. Ultimately, on
a few subsequent dates, the present petitioners could not appear before the
Trial Court.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners
could not appear before the Trial Court as they could not arrange the bailer and,
therefore, instead of appearing before the Trial Court, they filed an application
for adjournment through their engaged counsel. On 10.05.2023 also, the
petitioners again failed to appear before the Trial Court and had filed application
before the said Court wherein it was mentioned that the petitioners could not
arrange the bailer and, therefore, another date was prayed for their appearance.
However, the Trial Court rejected the prayer and issued Non-bailable Warrant of
Arrest, fixing 11.07.2023 for their appearance. Thereafter, on 11.07.2023, the
Page No.# 3/4
Trial Court had issued proclamation and attachment order against the present
petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as the counsel for
the petitioners had filed on behalf of the present petitioners before the Trial
Court, the Trial Court should not have issued proclamation order as before
issuing such proclamation order, the Trial Court ought to have arrived at a
satisfaction that the petitioners have absconded or concealing themselves so
that the Warrant of Arrest issued against may not be executed, whereas at that
point of time, it is submitted that the bail petition filed by the present petitioners
was pending before the Trial Court.
It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the present petitioners
that the present petitioners are ready to face trial as they have now arranged
their bailer and they are ready to appear before the Trial Court and cooperate in
the trial and, therefore, have prayed to convert the pending Non-bailable
Warrant of Arrest issued against them into Bailable Warrant of Arrest and in
support of the said submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners have cited a
judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition No. 654/2017
which was decided on 17.07.2018 wherein under similar circumstances the
pending Non-bailable Warrant of Arrest issued against the present petitioners
were directed to be treated as Bailable Warrant of Arrest.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has submitted that
from record it appears that the petitioners without any just cause failed to
appear before the Trial Court in spite of receipt of summons by them on the
several consecutive dates and they were also shown as an absconder in the
charge-sheet.
Page No.# 4/4
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioners.
Though, from the copies of the petitions filed by the present petitioners
before the Trial Court, it appears that they had mentioned therein that they had
failed to procure bailer for which they did not appear before the Trial Court on
the date fixed. However, it also appears that the petitioners had engaged
counsel to appear before the Trial Court and filed petition showing cause of their
absence before the Trial Court and this does not appears to be a case where the
petitioners have willfully defied the summons issued by the Trial Court. Further,
considering the fact that the petitioners are ready to face the trial and cooperate
in their trial, this criminal petition is hereby disposed of with a direction to the
above named petitioners to appear before the Court of learned Sessions Judge,
Karimganj within a period of fifteen days from the date of this order and to
cooperate in the trial and to facilitate such appearance of the petitioners before
the Trial Court, the Non-bailable Warrant of Arrest issued by the Trial Court
against them shall be treated as Bailable Warrant of Arrest of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) each. After appearing before the Trial Court, the
petitioners may make prayer before that Court for any other appropriate relief, if
so advised.
With the above observations, this criminal petition is hereby disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
