The Gauhati High Court rejected the second bail application of the accused-petitioner Nituki Boro in a narcotic drugs case. Finding that the trial was near completion with most witnesses examined, the Court declined bail but directed the Special Judge to expedite the evidence recording.
Bail prayer rejected at this stage; trial to be expedited.
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.# 1/2
GAHC010009732021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./243/2021
JETUKI BORO
W/O RUBUL BORO, VILL- NO. 2 GHOGA, MADLABARI, P.S. MUKALMUA, DIST-NALBARI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR F Z MAZUMDER Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA
ORDER
04-03-2021
This is an application made under Section 439 Cr.P.C ., seeking bail by the accused-petitioner, namely, Jetuki Boro, in connection with Mukalmua Police Station Case No. 314 of 2019 , (corresponding to NDPS Case No. 24/2019, Nalbari), registered under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 .
Heard Mr. F.Z. Mazumder, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state respondent.
The scanned copy of the deposition of three of the witnesses examined and copy of the charge-sheet etc. has been perused.
This is second bail application made by the petitioner, his first such application was rejected vide order, dated 20-11-2020, passed in Bail Application No. 2027/2020, with an observation
Page No.# 2/2
therein. The observation made in the last paragraph of the said order has been referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that in accordance with the said order, the petitioner had moved a petition before the learned Court below, which was rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the order, dated 20-11-2020, only one witness has been examined. On perusal of the charge-sheet, it is found that there are altogether 12 witnesses and out of which 9 witnesses have already been examined and only official witnesses are left to be examined.
Since the trial is at the verge of completion, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.
That being so, the prayer for bail made by the accused-petitioner is rejected at this stage. However, the learned jurisdictional Special Judge will ensure that the evidence is taken on time bound manner so as to complete the trial expeditiously taking into account the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since long.
The bail application stands disposed of with the above observations and direction. Return the case diary.
A copy of this order be furnished to the learned Court below by the petitioner so as to enable the learned Court below to dispose of the matter expeditiously.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner at this stage of the trial.
Whether the trial court should expedite the evidence recording given the petitioner's custody duration.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jetuki Boro
The State of Assam Represented by the Public Prosecutor, Assam
Hitesh Kumar Sarma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
