Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 107 (GAU)

Bijut Chutia v. State Of Assam

2022-02-03

MANISH CHOUDHURY

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners and Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State of Assam. 2. By this application under Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused-petitioners viz. 1) Sri Bijut Chutia and 2) Sri Jitupan Chutia @ Kokoi have prayed for their release on bail in connection with Sessions Case no. 38[T]/2020, presently pending before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia. 3. The concerned First Information Report lodged on 03.06.2019 was registered as Makum Police Station Case no. 91/2019 for offences under Sections 147/341/120B/302/34, IPC. During the course of investigation, both the accused-petitioners were arrested. After arrest, the accused-petitioner no. 1 was produced before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia on 08.06.2019 whereas the accused-petitioner no. 2 was produced before the said learned Court on 06.06.2019. Since those dates, the accused-petitioners are in custody. After completion of investigation in connection with Makum Police Station Case no. 91/2019, the Investigating Officer of the case submitted a charge sheet being Charge Sheet no. 68/2019 dated 29.08.2019 finding a prima facie case to proceed with the trial against seen persons including the present two accused-petitioners. After submission of the charge sheet, the case has been registered as Sessions Case no. 38[T]/2020. 4. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners has submitted that few of the other co-accused persons preferred bail applications before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia. Those bail applications were rejected by the learned trial Court. Hence, these two accused-petitioners have preferred the present bail application seeking bail during the pendency of the trial. It is the submission of Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner that since more than 21/2 years, the accused-petitioners are in custody. 5. Ms. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the accused-petitioners have directly approached this Court without preferring, at first, any bail application before the learned trial Court. 6. It is fairly submitted by Mr. Gupta that no bail application on behalf of the accused-petitioners has been preferred before the Court of learned trial Court during the pendency of the trial before approaching this Court. Mr. Gupta has submitted that the accused-petitioners will approach the learned trial Court with an application seeking regular bail immediately. 7. 6. It is fairly submitted by Mr. Gupta that no bail application on behalf of the accused-petitioners has been preferred before the Court of learned trial Court during the pendency of the trial before approaching this Court. Mr. Gupta has submitted that the accused-petitioners will approach the learned trial Court with an application seeking regular bail immediately. 7. In the above view of the matter, this Court is also of the considered view that the accused-petitioners should, at first, approach the learned trial Court making a prayer for regular bail instead of approaching this Court. 8. It is, therefore, observed that in the event the accused-petitioners approach the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia seeking bail, the same should be considered in accordance with law and in an expeditious manner taking note of the pendency of the trial and also the aspect that the accused-petitioners are in custody since 06.06.2019 and 08.06.2019 respectively. 9. With the above observation, this bail application stands closed.