Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam on 17 October, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010221982025
2025:GAU-AS:13918
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./1234/2025
KARTIK KUMAR BHUYAN
SON OF SRI RAGHUNATH BHUYAN, NOW RESIDENT OF HOLLYMOUNT
HOME FLAT NO B3, 1ST FLOOR, LAKHIMI PATH, NEAR DEBASISH
RESIDENCY, BELTOLA TINIALI, BELTOLA, P.S. BASISTHA, P.O. BELTOLA
BAZAR, DISTRICT KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM, PIN 781028.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE P.P., ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S N TAMULI, MS. P K ZANNAT,MS P DEKA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN
ORDER
Date : 17.10.2025
1. Heard Mr. S.N Tamuli, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard
Mr. K.K Parashar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of
Assam.
Page No.# 2/5
2. This is an application filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023
challenging the order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the Ld. Judicial
Magistrate First Class, No. 4, Kamrup (M) in G.R. Case No. 14205/2013.
3. By the said order dated 14.08.2025, the Ld. Court had refused the
prayer made by the petitioner for splitting up the case in view of the fact
that the other co-accused could not be arrested and were absconding
since long. The order dated 14.08.2025 reflects that although it was held
that the instant case was a long pending case but on the ground that if
the case is splitted up, then the risk of inconsistent judgment appears. It
is further held in the said order that when a case is split up, the evidence
presented in one trial might inadvertently prejudice the outcome of the
other, even if that evidence is not directly admissible against all accused.
It was also held that different Judges might interpret the same evidence
differently which might lead to conflicting verdicts for co-accused in
separate trials and also that when accused persons are tried separately,
the ability to effectively cross-examine witness may be compromised and
that the same may result in manipulation of the legal process. In view of
the said observations, the Ld. Court had refused splitting up of the trial
unless all the processes for arresting the accused persons who were
absconding are exhausted.
4. Mr. S.N Tamuli, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance
on two judgments passed by the Hon'ble High Courts of Madras and
Allahabad. The judgment passed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court was
delivered in George Ashok V. State in which the Hon'ble Madras High
Court had held that speedy trial is the fundamental right of an accused
person and that the same emanates from Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. It is held that for the inability of the police personnel to arrest the
Page No.# 3/5
co-accused, the accused, who regularly appears before the Court, should
not suffer. It was further observed that the innocent should be freed
quickly and the guilty should be punished appropriately, without any
delay. In view of the said observations, the Ld. Court had ordered for
splitting up of the case and have further ordered the police personnel to
serve the summons upon the co-accused and enforce their attendance
before the Ld. Court. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court also while
delivering judgment in Suganram V. State of U.P had observed that
the argument that unless the attendance of all the accused persons are
ensured, the case of the applicant cannot be separated is considered to
be an incorrect argument not based on sound reasoning and that it was
further observed that speedy trial is the fundamental right of the accused
and if one co-accused is absconding and the remaining co-accused are
regularly appearing before the Ld. Court, the case of the absconding
accused should be separated and that the accused persons who are
regularly appearing before the Court cannot be permitted to wait for the
absconding accused. As such, he submits that in the instant case the Ld.
Court should split the case and should proceed with the case of the
petitioner and as and when the co-accused is arrested and brought before
the Ld. Court, the case can be proceeded against them too by filing the
case.
5. Mr. K.K Parashar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of
Assam have also fairly submitted that since the case has been long
pending and the co-accused was not arrested in spite of the best efforts
as stated by the police, the case should have been splitted up.
6. I have considered the submissions and have gone through the
records. It is noticed that the grounds for rejection of the prayer for
splitting up the case are as follows :
Page No.# 4/5
(i) Splitting up the case may cause prejudice to the
accused, and may result in inconsistent judgment,
(ii) Splitting up the case may result in consideration
of evidence differently by different judges which may result in
conflicting judgments and that the same might also lead to
difficulty in cross-examining the witnesses.
7. However, the said justifications given by the Ld. Trial Court is not
proper in view of the law laid down. The case where the petitioner has
prayed for splitting up has been pending since 2013 and the police has
been searching the co-accused since long and were not able to arrest them
and that it is a settle position of law that a speedy trial is the fundamental
right of the accused person and it is also noticed that the petitioner, along
with another, had been present before the Court on respective dates since
2013 and that due to non-arrest of the other two accused persons, their
case did not proceed which is against the law laid down in the country. As
such, it is directed that the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, No. 4,
Kamrup (M) should split up the case as against the petitioner as well as the
other accused person and the new case may be instituted and proceeded
further according to law.
8. In view of the same, the order dated 14.08.2025 by which the Ld.
Judicial Magistrate First Class, No. 4, Kamrup (M) had refused to split up
the case is set-aside.
9. Revision is, as such, allowed.
10. Further, it is also directed that the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First
Class, No. 4, Kamrup (M) shall remind the police personnel to do the
needful in arresting the absconding accused person and to take all the
processes, in accordance with law.
Page No.# 5/5
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
