Azim Uddin Ahmed Alias Ajim Uddin and 2 Ors v. The State of Assam

ORDER

12.09.2024

¶1Heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam.

¶2This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, 1. Azim Uddin Ahmed @ Ajim Uddin, 2. Abdul Barik, and 3. Johar Ali @ Jahar Ali, who are detained behind the bars since 17.07.2024 (for last 57 days) in connection with Simla P.S. Case No. 50/2024 under Section 310(5)/310(6) of the BNS, 2023.

¶3The gist of accusation against the petitioners is that on

16.07.2024, one Trilakya Das, SI of Police, had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of Simla Police Station, inter alia, alleging that on receipt of an information through reliable sources that a group of dacoits are planning to commit dacoity in Bashbari area, police teams were formed to apprehend the dacoits and accordingly at around 9:10 PM, one silver colour Mahindra XUV vehicle bearing Registration No. AS01BB6045 was intercepted at Pathsala Chowk and the accused persons were apprehended therefrom.

¶4The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that apart from seizure of two mobile phones, no other incriminating materials were seized from the petitioners. He also submits that the allegations made in the FIR against the petitioners are not true. Page No.# 3/4

¶5The learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that there is nothing on record from which it can be inferred that a preparation for committing dacoity was done by the present petitioners and there is also nothing to suggest that the petitioners assembled for the purpose of doing the same.

¶6The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were hired by one contractor for doing some construction work in his side and there is nothing to suggest that they assemble for the purpose of committing dacoity.

¶7On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that all the three petitioners have pending cases against them involving dacoity in different police stations and the only purpose of their assembling together was to commit dacoity and therefore, he opposes the grant of bail to the present petitioners.

¶8I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and have perused the materials available on record. On perusal of the case diary, it appears that the petitioner, Azim Uddin Ahmed @ Ajim Uddin has been involved in a criminal case earlier, which is registered as Patacharkuchi P.S. Case No. 560/2020. Similarly, the petitioner, Abdul Barik is also involved in a earlier criminal case, i.e. Patacharkuchi P.S. Case No. 86/2020, and similarly, the petitioner, Johar Ali @ Jahar Ali is also involved in another criminal case, which is registered as Tezpur P.S. Case No. 538/2023. However, apart from the fact that the petitioners were found together on the day when they were arrested no other materials could be collected by the Investigating Officer till date, to Page No.# 4/4 suggest that they were making any preparation for committing dacoity and that they assembled for the purpose of committing dacoity. Moreover, the petitioners are already detained behind the bars for last 57 days.

¶9In view of the above, further custodial detention of the petitioners does not appear to be necessary for fair completion of the investigation of the Simla P.S. Case No. 50/2024.

¶10In view of the above, the above-named petitioners are hereby allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/- each with one surety of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baksa, Mushalpur with the following conditions: i. the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer every week for next four weeks or till the investigation is completed whichever is earlier; and ii. That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Investigating Officer.

¶11With the above observation, this bail application is accordingly disposed of.

¶12Send back the case diary.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010158532024 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oBailoAppln./2315/2024o AZIMoUDDINoAHMEDoALIASoAJIMoUDDINoANDo2oORSo S/OoSONAoUDDINo@oSONARoUDDINo VILL-o2oNO.oBARPATHARo P.S.oBOKOo DIST.oKAMRUP,oASSAM 2:oABDULoBARIK oS/OoLATEoIRFANoALIo VILL-oFORESToKANKATAo P.S.oRANGJULIo DIST.oGOALPARA oASSAM 3:oJOHARoALIoALIASoJAHARoALI oS/OoSULEMANoSEIKHo VILL-oMALGAONoKAMERIo P.S.oKOKRAJHAR o DIST.oKOKRAJHAR oASSAo VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMo REPoBYoTHEoPP,oASSAM AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oMR.oRoALI,oMRoHoAoAHMEDo AdvocateoforotheoRespondento:oPP,oASSAM,oo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA