Disposed

Md. Habibur Rahman @ Katikhua v. the Union of India

Gauhati HC20 Dec 2021Crl.Pet./767/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court disposed of a bail petition under Section 482 CrPC. The court declined to interfere with the Sessions Court's order issuing a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner, noting his absence from the first appearance despite no irregularity in the warrant issuance and no cogent reasons for his long unavailability.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; directed petitioner to approach the learned trial court with a bail application.

Md. Habibur Rahman @ Katikhua Vs the Union of India — Bail and Remand | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010218092021

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : Crl.Pet./767/2021

¶5

MD. HABIBUR RAHMAN @ KATIKHUA S/O LATE SURUJ JAMAL R/O C/O SUNU JAMAL HAQUE 513M BOLODUNGA, SAKOMATHA 73/18, DIST. SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN CODE- 784176

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE STANDING COUNSEL, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI).

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. T SOM

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CBI

¶10

BEFORE

¶11

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

20.12.2021.

¶14

Heard Ms. T. Som, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent CBI.

¶15

The petitioner herein has been arrayed as an accused in the C.R. Case No.1591^C /2014, under Section 379 of the IPC and Section 51(1) of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and Sections

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

25(1)(a) of the Arms Act , which was subsequently committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge and was registered as Sessions Case No.583/2019, now pending before the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge/FTC No.3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati.

¶18

After committal of the case, when the case was taken by the learned Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge/FTC No.3 and all the co-accused appeared before the Court, save and except the present petitioner, the Court issued non-bailable warrant of arrest (NBWA) against him vide order dated 17.06.2019 and subsequent orders also follow the same.

¶19

Now the petitioner has come forward with the present petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, contending that the petitioner is ready to face the trial but apprehensive of arrest due to issuance of NBWA. Further it is also contended by the petitioner that after committal of the case, the learned trial Court did not give any opportunity for appearance of the petitioner and on the very first day, the NBWA has been issued and has now prayed to allow him to appear before the learned trial Court along with the further prayer to allow him to remain on previous bail.

¶20

Considered the submission of learned counsel for both the parties.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was not aware about the date of appearance before the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge/FTC No.3 and also the issuance of NBWA against him and in the subsequent period, he could not appear before the learned trial Court, due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

¶22

On perusal of the record, it reveals that on the very first day, on appearance of all other accused persons before the learned trial Court, the present accused/petitioner remain absent and there was also no step on his behalf.

¶23

It is discernable that whenever a Court has committed a came from the Court of Magistrate to the Sessions Court, all the accused persons are given a specific date to appear before the Sessions Court. That being so, the contention that the petitioner was not aware about the date cannot be accepted, more so, while all other accused persons appear before the Court, in terms of the order of the committal Court.

¶24

It appears that the accused person is a long defaulter since the year 2019 and such a contention raised at this stage, only after issuance of repeated NBWA cannot be considered,

¶25

Page No.# 3/3

¶26

as it lacks cogent reasons for his absence. Otherwise, the offence is a sessions triable one. On bare perusal of the order of the learned trial Court, there appears no irregularity or illegality in the order so passed and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order so passed.

¶27

Accordingly the petition is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to approach the learned trial Court, with necessary bail application and the learned trial Court will decide the same in accordance with the law.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Md. Habibur Rahman @ Katikhua v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Habibur Rahman @ Katikhua v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bijay Bhusan Bharatiya Borah Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Basir Uddin and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Shafi Kamal Ahmed Vs the State of Assam

Union of India Vs M/S Kamakhya Transport Pvt. Ltd.

Riku Boro and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Md. Abdul Miya and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam