Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1337 (GAU)

Abdul Mazid v. State Of Assam Rep by PP, Assam

2019-12-09

AJAI LAMBA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ajai Lamba, J. Mr. Abdul Mazid has filed this application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for bail in Abhayapuri P.S. Case No.392/2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No.762/2013 under Sections 379/365 I.P.C. 2. It appears that the petitioner was earlier released on bail vide the order dated 15th February, 2016 by the Lower Court. It, however, appears that the petitioner did not surrender to the process of law and absconded. 3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has drawn attention of the court to the contents of order dated 5.11.2019 rendered in the bail case of the petitioner to demonstrate that in case concession of bail is granted in favour of the petitioner, there is likelihood that he shall abscond. 4. I have considered the rival contention. While learned counsel for the petitioner has assured the Court that the petitioner will follow the due process of law, the past conduct of the petitioner indicates otherwise. So as to refer to the past conduct of the petitioner, the following portion of the order dated 5.11.2019 is required to be noticed:- "On perusal of the CR it is seen that the accused Abdul Mazid was named as absconder in the charge sheet and after taking cognizance, the Court issued summons to the accused Abdul Mazid. The summons were duly served but on 30/10/2015, the accused Abdul Mazid remained absent with steps. So, the Court fixed 24/12/2015 for appearance but on 24/12/2015 the accused again found absent with steps and the Court fixed 15/02/2016. On 15/02/2016 the accused Abdul Mazid appeared and he was allowed to go on bail on execution of a bond of Rs.20,000/- with one surety under the following conditions --- (1) That he shall, without fail, appear each and every date fixed personally; (2) That he shall submit his proper address proof on the next date fixed; and (3) That he shall not leave his permanent address without obtaining prior permission from the Court, excluding his appearance in the case. As appeared a condition was imposed upon the accused that he would not leave his permanent address without obtaining prior permission from the Court, excluding his appearance in this case and the next date was fixed on 30/03/2016, fixing for copy and c/c. But on 30/03/2016, the accused Abdul Mazid was found absent with steps. As appeared a condition was imposed upon the accused that he would not leave his permanent address without obtaining prior permission from the Court, excluding his appearance in this case and the next date was fixed on 30/03/2016, fixing for copy and c/c. But on 30/03/2016, the accused Abdul Mazid was found absent with steps. As he had violated the condition for bail and as such the NBWA was issued against the accused. On subsequent dates, the surety for the accused Abdul Mazid was also called for and the surety Samser Ali on 19/03/2017 appeared before this Court and submitted that the accused was absconding and was not found in the given address, so, the Court forfeited the bail amount. After that considering the report of P&A, the case against Abdul Mazid was filed on 09/07/2019. Now, from the above discussion, it is seen that the accused Abdul Mazid had only appeared once and on the very next date from the date of his bail, violated the conditions for bail, even his surety was forfeited. The plea of the accused that he was in Delhi and could not appear before the Court is not a valid ground to allow him on bail because he violated the conditions of bail by not obtaining prior permissions from the Court. The case is delayed only for the reason that the accused Abdul Mazid stopped appearing and the Court had to wait for report of NBWA and P&A issued against him. In my opinion, if the accused is enlarged on bail it is highly probable that he might stopped appearing and the case will be delayed further. Hence, considering the above discussion, the bail petition is rejected. The accused is remanded to judicial custody till 15/11/2019. Fix 15/11/2019 for copy/production." 5. Considering the past conduct of the petitioner, I find no ground to grant bail to the petitioner. 6. The application is dismissed. 7. Considering the nature of offence, I hereby direct the Trial Court to speed up the process of trial and conclude it at the earliest. 8. In case, the prosecution does not produce witnesses, after charges are framed, the petitioner would be at liberty to file a fresh application for bail after six months.