Jyoti Sharma vs The State Of Assam
2025 Latest Caselaw 7149 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Jyoti Sharma vs The State Of Assam on 9 September, 2025

                                                                         Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010185382025




                                                                  undefined

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

                               Case No. : Bail Appln./2749/2025

            JYOTI SHARMA
            W/O ABHISHEK SHARMA
            R/O HOUSE NO. 42, SHARMA RICE MILLS, GLASS FACTOR COMPOUND,
            FATASHIL, BHARALUMUKH, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-781009


            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM
            REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR P TALUKDAR, MS S PATOWARY,MR R SINGHA,S I AHMED

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,




                                   BEFORE
                 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

                                           ORDER

Date : 09.09.2025

1. Heard Mr. R. Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that though the case diary was called for, however, in the meanwhile the charge sheet No. 116/2025 dated 31.08.2025, has been laid.

Page No.# 2/2

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the charge sheet has been laid in this case, however, it may not be appropriate to relegate the petitioner again to the Trial Court in view of the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of "Arvind Kejriwal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation", reported in 2024 SCC online SC 2550.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides.

5. In the present case, the petitioner has been detained behind the bars for the last 56 days, whereas, in the case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner of that case was detained behind the bars for more than five months. It also appears that the Apex Court observed in the same judgment that ordinarily an undertrial should first approach the Trial Court for bail.

6. In the case referred above, the Apex Court found that since the notice was issued and parties were apparently heard by the high court, it was not necessary at that stage to relegate the appellant of that case to the Trial Court. However, in the instant case, the bail application has not yet been heard, neither the charge sheet is before this Court, therefore, this Court is of opinion that as all the relevant materials would be before the Trial Court, it would be proper for the petitioner to approach the Trial Court.

7. Hence, this bail application is disposed of with an observation that the petitioner may approach the Trial Court and may file an application praying for regular bail before the said court, if so advised.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant