The High Court dismissed a petition for quashing N.B.W.A. and P&A orders issued due to the petitioner's willful and prolonged absence from criminal trial proceedings, finding the case devoid of merit.
The petition for quashing the orders of N.B.W.A. and P&A is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010287282018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet. 1317/2018
1:MAYAN ALI @ MOI HUSSAIN S/O MARTUZ ALI R/O VILL- KAYAKUCHI PATHAR P.O.NALIGAON, P.S. BARPETA DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
2:SMTI. RITA DEKA D/O KESHAB DEKA R/O PALLASATRA P.O. AND P.S. SARTHABARI DIST. BARPETA PIN - 783380
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D F A AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
ORDER
Date : 04-01-2019
Heard Mr. DFA Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P.S.Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State respondent No. 1.
Page No.# 2/3
By this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of Non-Bailable Warrant of Arrest (N.B.W.A.) dated 07.06.2018 and the subsequent orders dated 26.07.2018 and 07.09.2018 as well as the orders of Proclamation and Attachment (P&A) and Warrant of Arrest dated 07.09.2018 and 31.10.2018 issued against him by the learned SDJM (S), Barpeta in G.R. Case No. 200/2011 registered U/S 395 of the IPC, due to his non appearance in the said G.R. case.
It is stated by the petitioner that he is a driver by profession and could not appear in the said G.R. Case on the relevant dates when it was fixed. It is also stated by him that the next date of said G.R. Case is 09.01.2019 and he will appear before the learned Magistrate on the said date and the orders of NBWA(s) as well as the order of P/As issued against him in the Case need to be set aside/quashed.
Petitioner is one of the charge-sheeted accused in Sarthebari P.S. Case No. 18/2011 under Section 395 of the IPC which is presently pending before the learned SDJM(S), Barpeta. Petitioner categorically submitted that on receiving summons in G.R. Case No. 200/2011, he appeared before the Court of learned SDJM(S), Barpeta and filed a petition with a prayer to allow him to remain on previous bail in the said GR Case and the learned Court being pleased on such prayer, allowed him to remain on previous bail and the said matter was fixed on 14.03.2018 for his appearance. It is also submitted by him that on 14.03.2018 and 19.04.2018, he remained absent in the said GR Case with steps, through his engaged counsel. But it is seen that thereafter, petitioner remained absent in the said G.R. Case No. 200/2011 on the dates fixed i.e. on 07.06.2018, 26.07.2018, 07.09.2018 and 31.10.2018 without any steps, although he was fully aware of the said G.R. Case pending against him, where he obtained bail on 25.01.2018. It is because of such non-appearance in the said G.R. Case No.200/2011, the learned SDJM (S), Barpeta issued the orders of NBWAs against the petitioner for his appearance in the said case and inspite of that as he did not appear, the learned Magistrate later issued the order of P/A against him for his appearance in the said G.R. case.
Petitioner did not state any reason as to why he remained absent before the leaned Magistrate in the said G.R. Case No. 200/2011 on the dates fixed, accept making a statement that he is a driver by profession. It is seen that after obtaining bail in said G.R. Case No.
Page No.# 3/3
200/2011 from the learned SDJM(S), Barpeta on 25.01.2018, the petitioner never bothered to appear before the learned trial Magistrate in the said G.R. Case.
Considering the above, this court is of the view that it is not a fit case to exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to consider the case of the petitioner in the interest of justice as prayed for, since the petitioner willfully remained absent before the learned SDJM(S), Barpeta in the said G.R. Case No. 200/2011 on the dates fixed. As such, this petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed.
However, it is made clear that on the appearance of the petitioner before the learned SDJM(S), Barpeta in the said G.R. Case No. 200/2011 arising out of Sarthebari P.S. Case No. 18/2011 and on making such application for his bail in said G.R. Case by him; the learned Magistrate, needless to say, shall consider the same in accordance with law, securing the presence of the petitioner, in the said G.R. Case No. 200/2011 on the dates fixed and during its trial.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to quash the orders of Non-Bailable Warrant and Proclamation and Attachment for willful absence from court proceedings.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mayan Ali @ Moi Hussain
The State of Assam
Manash Ranjan Pathak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
