Gauhati High Court
Page No. 1/5 vs The State Of Assam on 26 May, 2025
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No. 1/5
GAHC010210062024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/991/2024
BABUL ALI @ BABUL HUSSAIN AND ANR
S/O. LATE MD. NUR ISLAM, R/O. VILL. PANBARIHABI, P/S. DHULA, DIST.
DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN-784190.
2: MD. HANIF ALI
S/O. LATE ABDUL KADER
R/O. KAWADANGA
P/S. DHULA
DIST. DARRANG
ASSAM
PIN-784190
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S BORTHAKUR, MR SAURADEEP DEY,SADDAM
HUSSAIN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER
ORDER
Date : 26.05.2025
[Manish Choudhury, J.]
Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the applicants-appellants and Ms. A.
Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party-respondent, State of
Assam.
2. The present application under Section 430[1], Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
[BNSS], 2023 is preferred seeking suspension of execution of the sentence passed against the
applicants-appellants and for their release on bail.
3. The applicants as the appellants, have preferred the accompanying appeal, Criminal
Appeal no. 343/2024 against a Judgment dated 11.09.2024 and an Order on sentence dated
17.09.2024 passed by the learned Court of Sessions Judge, Udalguri ['the Trial Court', for
short] in Sessions Case [T-II] no. 107/2018, arising out of Udalguri Police Station Case no.
125/2014.
4. In connection with Udalguri Police Station Case no. 125/2014, a Charge-Sheet was
submitted on 01.05.2018 finding a prima facie case against three accused persons, namely,
[i] Amir Ali @ Kalia; [ii] Babul Ali [the applicant no. 1 herein]; and [iii] Hanif Ali [the applicant
no. 2 herein] for committing an offence under Section 364A, Indian Penal Code [IPC] read
with Section 120B, IPC. The charges under Section 364A, IPC and Section 120B, IPC were
also framed against three accused persons. During the trial, the accused, Amir Ali faced trial
till the stage of examination of the accused persons under Section 313, CrPC. It was on
15.07.2024, the Trial Court filed the case against the accused person, Amir Ali @ Kalia as he
was found absconding.
5. Thus, the learned Trial Court passed the Judgment dated 11.09.2024 and the Order on
sentence dated 17.09.2024 against two applicants herein as accused no. 1 [A-1] and accused
no. 2 [A-2]. The applicants have been convicted the offences under Section 364A, IPC and
Section 120B, IPC separately. For the offence under Section 464A, IPC, the applicants have
been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-
each, with default stipulation. Under Section 120B, IPC, the applicants are ordered to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each.
6. The main allegation against the accused persons was inter-alia to the effect that they
abducted one Sayed Ali [P.W.1-informant] on 16.08.2014 by putting him under threat
demanding a ransom amount of Rs. 55,000/-.
7. During the course of the trial, the prosecution side examined nine nos. of prosecution
witnesses to bring home the charges against the accused persons. The informant, Sayed Ali,
the alleged victim, was examined as P.W.1 and one Fakir Ali was examined as P.W.3.
8. In the testimony before the Court, the informant-P.W.1 stated that after taking him to
the house of the applicant no. 1, the applicant no. 1 along with the applicant no. 2 and Amir
Ali [the absconding accused] and others have demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- from him and
assaulted him. According to P.W.1, a ransom amount of Rs. 55,000/- was agreed upon and
P.W.3 stood as a guarantor. However, P.W.1 was allowed to go from the alleged place where
he was confined, that is, the house of the applicant no. 1, on payment of Rs. 17,000/-. P.W.1
further testified that thereafter, he lodged the FIR and it was after lodging the FIR, he paid
the remaining amount out of the agreed ransom amount through P.W.3.
9. On the other hand, the P.W.3, in his testimony, deposed to the effect that when he was
informed that P.W.1 was allegedly abducted, he went to the house of the applicant no. 1.
Going there, he saw P.W.1 sitting there with tea and snacks and P.W.1 requested him to take
him home. Though all the three accused persons were present there, it was one Subahan Ali
who asked P.W.1 to pay Rs. 40,000/-. P.W.3 further stated that he become a guarantor and
took P.W.1 to his house with an assurance to the accused persons that P.W.1 told him that
P.W.1 would pay the money to P.W.3 in his house. P.W.3 further stated that accordingly, he
requested the accused person and the other persons present there to release P.W.1 and
made an assurance to them to pay the money later on. Thereafter, P.W.3 brought P.W.1 to his
house and it was only after three-four days, P.W.1 gave P.W.3 an amount of Rs. 40,000/- to
P.W.3 who, in turn, gave it to Subahan Ali. P.W.3 who, according to P.W.1, was a material
witness stated that the Police did not record his statement.
10. According to the prosecution, the abduction of P.W.1 was for ransom. The defence case
was that there was some monetary dispute between the accused person, Amir Ali and P.W.1
for non-payment of an amount borrowed from Amir Ali by P.W.1.
11. Prima facie, there is apparent inconsistency as regards the ransom amount as well as
the payment of the ransom amount in instalments and the time when these demanded
ransom amount was paid in instalments. It has emerged from the evidence on record that
insofar as P.W.1 reaching the house of the applicant no. 1 on the date of alleged incident,
prima facie there was no element of force used on P.W.1.
12. For the offence under Section 364A, IPC, the necessary ingredients which the
prosecution has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, are not only the act of abduction but
thereafter the demand of ransom and the threat to life of the person who has been abducted.
It is settled that to bring home the charge under Section 364A, IPC, that is, kidnapping for
ransom, etc. which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life the prosecution has to
make a higher evidentiary standard.
13. After analysing the evidence on record including the testimony of the prosecution
witnesses and after considering the entire circumstances of the case, we are of the prima
facie view that the applicants have been able to make out a prima facie case for suspension
of execution of the sentence passed against them and for their release on bail. Resultantly,
we find it appropriate to allow this interlocutory application. Accordingly, it is ordered that the
operation of the sentence passed against the applicants-appellants by the learned Sessions
Judge, Udalguri in Sessions Case [T-II] no. 107/2018 vide the Judgment dated 11.09.2024
and the Order on sentence dated 17.09.2024 shall remain suspended till the disposal of the
connected criminal appeal, being Criminal Appeal no. 343/2024.
14. The applicants-appellants herein are allowed to go on bail by executing a bail bond of
Rs. 50,000/- each with two suitable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
learned Sessions Judge, Udalguri. The learned Sessions Judge, Udalguri is at liberty to make
any other conditions he deems fit and proper.
15. This interlocutory application stands disposed of in the above terms.
16. We make it clear and it goes without saying that any observations touching the merits
of the case are purely for the purpose of deciding the present application for suspension of
execution of sentence and shall not be construed as an expression of final opinion in the
pending criminal appeal before this Court.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
