VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Gauhati High Court 2024 › High Court of Gauhati

Md. Ramjan Ali v. The State of Assam and Anr

Rejected
Court
High Court of Gauhati
Decided
26 February 2024
Bench
S. Justice Malasri Nandiauthor
Case no.
Bail Appln. 297/2024

Judgment

ORDER Date : 27.02.2024

Heard Mr. B. Haldar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. B. Page No.# 2/3 Bishaya, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶2This is an application made under Section 439 Cr.P.C., seeking bail by the accused-petitioner, namely, Md. Ramjan Ali, in connection with POCSO Case No. 191/2022(arising out of Morigaon P.S. Case No. 0338/2022), registered under Section 366/376AB IPC r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act, pending before the court of learned Special Judge, POCSO, Morigaon, Assam.

¶3The learned counsel for the accused/petitioner submits that there are contradictions in the statement of the witnesses and the victims. Nowhere, in the statement of the witnesses that the petitioner to be involved in any crime which falls under Section 6 of POCSO Act. He further submitted that the petitioner has been detained in custody for more than one year. It is also submitted that the release of the accused is required to prepare his defence in this case. Under such backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that considering the period of detention, bail may be granted to the petitioner.

¶4On the other hand, Mr. Gogoi, learned Addl.P.P. has submitted that all the witnesses have already been examined in this case and the case is at the stage of recording the statement of the accused. At this stage, bail may not be granted to the petitioner.

¶5I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the scanned copy of the LCR.

¶6It reveals that all the witnesses have already been examined in this case. The trial is about to complete within a short period. Situated thus, Page No.# 3/3 interference by this Court is not permissible at this stage. Therefore, prayer for bail is rejected.

¶7The bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Case details

Parties and counsel

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010018832024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./297/2024 MD. RAMJAN ALI SON OF LT. JAYNAL ABEDIN, RESIDENT OF VILL-6 NO. SIT SATRA KONARA, P.S. BAGHBOR, DIST.- BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY P.P., ASSAM 2:SD/ MD. SAIFUL ISLAM S/O- LT. NURUL ISLAM VILL- MOIDHALI PATHAR PURA BAZAR P.S. AND DIST.- MORIGAON ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B HALDAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI

Source: High Court of Gauhati, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.