Rafikul Islam @ Genda v. The State of Assam

ORDER Date : 23.02.2024

Heard Mr. F. Haque, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of bail to the accused/ petitioner in connection with Sessions Case No. 109/2023, under Sections 460/392/302 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Kamrup (Metro) at Guwahati.

Scanned copy of the LCR along with the Case Diary has been received. Perused the same. Heard both sides.

It is submitted by Mr. Haque, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the accused/petitioner is behind the bar since 06.03.2023 and hence, considering his length of detention, he may be enlarged on bail. More so, in the F.I.R., his name is also not mentioned and no witnesses also took his name in the involvement of the alleged offence. The case is at the stage of evidence and 3 (three) numbers of witnesses are already being examined and there are several other witnesses and hence, considering his length of detention, he may be enlarged on bail. He, being the local resident of his addressed locality, there is no chance of absconding if he is enlarged on bail and he will appear before the Page No.# 3/4 learned Court below on each and every date.

In this context, Mr. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted that the case is progressing and already 3 (three) numbers of witnesses are being examined by the learned Court below, though some vital witnesses are yet to be examined, specially the police officer. Further, the present accused/petitioner, along with other co-accused persons, also led to discovery of the stolen articles and some other items. So, the further evidences of the other witnesses as well as the investigating officer is very much essential and at this stage, if the accused is allowed to go on bail, there is every chance of absconding or tampering with the witnesses. Thus, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently objected in allowing the accused/petitioner to go on bail.

Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, I have perused the record and the Case Diary and it is seen that it is a fact that 3 (three) numbers of witnesses, who are already been examined by the learned Court below, did not utter the name of the present accused/petitioner and the incident took place in the night when the victim was alone in his home. Further it is seen that the deceased was brutally murdered by the miscreants and considering the entire circumstances of this case, the plea of absconding cannot be denied at this stage.

Accordingly, considering all above aspects of the case viz-a-viz the nature of offence, I do not find it appropriate to allow the accused/petitioner to go on bail only considering the length of detention and therefore, I find it not a fit Page No.# 4/4 case to extend the privilege of bail to the accused/petitioner and accordingly, the same stands rejected.

In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of.

The Case Diary be sent back.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010027682024 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oBailoAppln./395/2024o RAFIKULoISLAMo@oGENDAo R/OoVILL-oDIGIRPAMoMANDIAo P.S.oBAGHBORo DIS.ToBARPETA,oASSAM VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMo REPoBYoTHEoPP,oASSAM AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oMRoFoHAQUEo AdvocateoforotheoRespondento:oPP,oASSAMoo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA