Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam
2025 Latest Caselaw 579 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam on 15 May, 2025

                                                                          Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010063372025




                                                                  2025:GAU-AS:6054

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

                                Case No. : Bail Appln./967/2025

            HAREN PATGIRI
            S/O BHADESWAR PATGIRI, R/O VILL- KOTHALMURI HAT, P.S
            PATACHARKUCHI, DIST BAJALI (BARPETA), ASSAM.



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM
            REP BY THE PP, ASSAM



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MS. S K NARGIS, MS N SULTANA,MS S BEGUM

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,




                          BEFORE
           HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
                                           ORDER

Date : 15.05.2025

Heard Ms. S. K. Nargis, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of Page No.# 2/7

bail to the accused/petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with Sessions Case No. 200/2023, arising out of Dispur P.S. Case No. 2479/2022, under Sections 392/302/396/34/120(B) of the Indian Penal code read with Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act.

3. Scanned copy of the case record has already been received. Perused the same.

4. It is submitted by Ms. Nargis, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the present accused/petitioner is innocent and he is no way connected in the alleged offence. He got arrested in connection with this case only on the basis of the statement made by the co-accused. He was arrested on 16.02.2023 and the charge-sheet was filed on 05.05.2023 and the charge was also framed on 12.01.2024 under Sections 392/302/396 /34/120(B) of IPC read with Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. The prosecution has cited 22 (twenty two) numbers of witnesses, but till date, only 4 (four) numbers of witnesses could be examined by the prosecution that too on insisting by the accused/petitioner. She further submitted that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused/petitioner and the arm which was alleged to have been used in the commission of the alleged offence could not be seized as it was used by one of the co-accused Bhupen Das who is still absconding. She further submitted that as per the allegation, the conspiracy was hatched by one co-accused Shah Alam Talukdar and there is no direct allegation against the present accused/petitioner.

5. Ms. Nargis, learned counsel for the petitioner, further submitted that one of the co-accused has already been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of Page No.# 3/7

this Court vide order dated 13.12.2024 in Bail Appln. No. 1930/2024 considering the length of detention and other circumstances of the case and thus, considering the case of the present petitioner on the same footing, he may also be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. He being the local person, there is no chance of absconding, rather he will appear on each and every date to be fixed by the Court and will face the trial.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that the present accused/petitioner was shown arrest in connection with this case as he was earlier arrested in connection with similar kind of offence under Changsari P.S. Case No. 462/2022 wherein also, the allegation of dacoity and Arms Act are involved. He further submitted that the deceased was shot dead in the broad day light by the accused persons. He further submitted that it is a fact that there was no eye witness to the incident, but from the confessional statement of one of the co-accused Sujal Ali, it is seen that the present petitioner is also involved in the alleged offence and one of the co- accused Shah Alam Talukdar shot the deceased. He further submitted that the confessional statement of the co-accused Sujal Ali is also authenticated by the CDR analysis report and CCTV footage and other circumstances of this case. Further, from the available materials, it is also seen that the present accused/petitioner was also present at the place of incident and the accused persons had come in 2 (two) bikes and shot the deceased. It also reveals from the record that the accused/ petitioner and the co-accused persons are also involved in the similar kind of offence wherein they used to target innocent people and commit similar kind of offence. In the present case also, from the available materials, it is seen that on the day of incident, 4/5 numbers of Page No.# 4/7

accused persons were present at the time of incident and one of the co-accused had committed the murder and accordingly, the present accused/petitioner along with some others were fully involved in the alleged offence. Thus, considering the criminal track record of the present accused/petitioner, viz-a-viz the gravity of the offence, the prayer for the present petitioner may not be considered at this stage.

7. Mr. Borthakur further submitted that the case of the co-accused, who was granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, is on different footing and hence, the present petitioner cannot be granted bail only considering the ground that the co-accused person was enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. In that context, Mr. Borthakur also relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2573 of 2025, arising out Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 14681 of 2024 (Aashish Yadav Vs. Yashpal & Ors.), and emphasized on paragraph No. 20 of the judgment, which read as under:

"20. The High Court therefore failed to consider these above grounds and has mechanically passed the order and allowed the appeal. The order of grant of bail to accused on parity is error apparent on the face of the record. The High Court failed to consider that the accused are the main accused in the matter and cannot be enlarged on bail because the other co-accused persons have been granted bail. The High Court order granting bail to the accused respondents is hereby set aside. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed."

8. Ms. Nargis, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted in this regard that out of 22 (twenty two) numbers of cited witnesses, the prosecution could examine only 4 (four) witnesses and thus, it cannot be accepted that the trial will be completed within a reasonable period, though the petitioner is in custody since 16.02.2023. She further submitted that the inordinate delay in completion Page No.# 5/7

of trial would infringe the right of the accused person guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In that regard, she also relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(a). 8523/2024 (Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.) and emphasized on paragraph Nos. 7 & 8 of the judgment, which read as under:

"7. An accused has a right to a fair trial and while a hurried trial is frowned upon as it may not give sufficient time to prepare for the defence, an inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial would infringe the right of an accused guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

8. It is not for nothing the Author Oscar Wilde in "The Ballad of Reading Gaol", wrote the following poignant lines while being incarcerated:

"I know not whether Laws be right, Or whether Laws be wrong; All that we know who be in jail Is that the wall is strong; And that each day is like a year, A year whose days are long."

9. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, I have also perused the case record and the other annexures filed along with the petition.

10. It is a fact that there was no eye witness to the prosecution, but during investigation, the I.O. has collected sufficient materials and also recorded the confessional statement of one of the co-accused Sujal Ali, whose statement is also corroborated/authenticated by the CDR analysis, CCTV footage and other circumstances of this case. In the present case, the deceased was shot dead in the broad day light when he was heading for ICICI Bank to deposit money. Further, the involvement of the present accused/petitioner in the alleged offence Page No.# 6/7

also cannot be denied at this stage from the materials which has been collected by the I.O. during the investigation.

11. Coming to the issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the bail granted to the co-accused by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, it is seen that the role of the said co-accused is not similar with the involvement of the present petitioner and it cannot be considered that the case of the co-accused is on the same footing with the present petitioner. It was the allegation against the co-accused that he supplied the arms to the accused persons, but here in the instant case, it is the direct allegation against the present petitioner that he is fully involved in the alleged offence. More so, it is also seen that he is involved in similar kind of offence and 2 (two) other cases are still pending against the present petitioner wherein also, the allegation of dacoity as well as the arms act is brought against the present petitioner.

12. It is an admitted position that inordinate delay in concluding the trial may violate the constitutional right of a person, but the long incarceration and the violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India or the delay in trial cannot be the ground for allowing the accused persons to go on bail in a heinous crime. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the personal liberty to everyone, however the same cannot be taken away except in accordance with the procedures established by law. When the seriousness of an offence is such, the mere fact that he was in jail for however long time should not be the concern of the court and in heinous crime, length of tenure in custody may not be the only factor of consideration for the grant of bail. In that context, a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court can be relied on passed in Page No.# 7/7

Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr. [2005 0 Supreme(SC) 104], wherein it is held that " if a person accused of offences which are non bailable is liable to be detained in custody during the pendency of trial unless he is enlarged on bail in accordance with law. Such detention cannot be question as being violative of Article 21 since the same is authorized by law."

13. In the light of discussion made above and also considering the seriousness of the offence and the fact that there is a prima facie case against the present accused/petitioner and further considering the view expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case laws referred to hereinabove, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to enlarge the accused/petitioner on bail at this stage. Hence, the present bail application stands rejected.

14. The bail application stands disposed of in terms above.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant