Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 200 (GAU)

Ashish Mandal @ Bappi Mandal v. State of Assam

2022-02-25

HITESH KUMAR SARMA

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. This is an application made under Section 439 Cr.P.C., seeking bail by the accused-petitioner, namely, Sri Ashish Mandal @ Bappi Mandal, in connection with Fatashil Ambari Police Station Case No. 703 of 2021, registered under Sections 448/294/342/354/397/326/307/34 of the IPC, read with Sections 25(1A)/27 of the Arms Act, 1959. 2. Heard A.M. Bora, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. B. Bhagawati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 3. Mr. Bora, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the accused-petitioner has been in custody for 125 days as on date. He has further submitted that the admitted position is that the charge-sheet filed in this case is not complete charge-sheet; rather, a part charge-sheet filed against the petitioner and others. He has further submitted that in the statements of witnesses, recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner has not been implicated and that being so, according to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, custodial trial of the petitioner is not necessary. 4. Mr. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted that although the charge-sheet is a part charge-sheet yet the learned Court has taken cognizance of the offences and has also fixed the matter for consideration of charge. Since cognizance has been taken of the offences on the basis of the charge-sheet, the charge-sheet in the instant case cannot be treated as a part charge-sheet in respect of the present petitioner. 5. I have gone through the photocopy of the case diary as well as the status report. 6. On consideration of the materials in the case diary, particularly, the statements of the witnesses, recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., this Court is of the view that further custodial detention of the petitioner, beyond 125 days, is not necessary as this Court is further of the view that custodial trial of the petitioner is not necessary. 7. That being so, the petitioner is granted bail. 8. Accordingly, the accused-petitioner, named above, is granted default bail. He shall be released on bail in connection with the case aforementioned on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- with two suitable sureties each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. 9. 7. That being so, the petitioner is granted bail. 8. Accordingly, the accused-petitioner, named above, is granted default bail. He shall be released on bail in connection with the case aforementioned on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- with two suitable sureties each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. 9. The direction for bail is further subject to the conditions that the accused-petitioner : (a) shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, without prior written permission from him; (b) shall not tamper with the evidence of the case; (c) shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court. (d) shall regularly appear in the Court below on each and every date fixed and in the event of default in appearance even for a single day without just and reasonable cause to the satisfaction of the learned Court below, the learned Court below shall be at liberty to put the petitioner behind the bar and proceed with the trial. 10. In terms of the above, this bail application stands disposed of. 11. Return the case diary.