Dismissed

Ala Uddin and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC12 Sept 2022AB/1963/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court rejected an application for pre-arrest bail under section 438 Cr.P.C. issued by two petitioners charged with assault causing hurt and attempted murder under sections 326, 307, and 341 IPC. The court held that due to the brutality of the attack involving sharp and blunt weapons and credible evidence, the case was not fit for bail.

What did the court decide?

Application for pre-arrest bail under section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected and disposed of.

Ala Uddin and Anr. Vs the State of Assam — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010138382022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB/1963/2022

¶5

ALA UDDIN AND ANR S/ O LATE ABDUL KARIM R/O VILL- DHALCHERRA P.S. PATHERKANDI DIST. KARIMGANJ, ASSAM

¶6

2: FUZAIL AHMED @ HALIM S/O ALA UDDIN R/O VILL- DHALCHERRA P.S. PATHERKANDI DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSA

¶7

VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶10

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Date : 12.09.2022

¶13

Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I.U. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Bankim

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

Sarma, learned Addl. P.P. for the State as well as Mr. H. Kalita, learned counsel for the informant.

¶16

The petitioners, who are apprehending arrest in connection with Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 76/2022 under sections 341/326/ 307/34 IPC, are seeking pre-arrest bail under section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶17

It may be mentioned that when the matter was taken up on 01.09.2022, the learned counsel for the informant had produced a uncertified copy of order dated 06.05.2022, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj in Misc. Bail Appl. No. 179/2022 by which the pre-arrest bail application was rejected and it was submitted that the present case be dismissed. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to take remedial steps. In the said regard, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on 02.09.2022, the learned counsel for the petitioners, by swearing an affidavit had admitted the mistake in not mentioning in the bail application that the previous pre-arrest bail application was dismissed by the learned Court below. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has expressed his regret that such a mistake has happened in this case. Therefore, the mistake of not disclosing about rejection of pre-arrest bail application as indicated herein before is condoned.

¶18

The learned Addl. P.P. has produced the case diary and has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶19

It appears that on 19.03.2022, the petitioners had allegedly assaulted one Abdul Shahid. In the FIR dated 21.03.2022, lodged by one Manik Ahmed, it was alleged that on 19.03.2022, at about 2.00 pm., his younger brother, Abdul Shahid, was coming from Tokurbazar to his house and on reaching Dhalcherra Road, the two petitioners herein, armed with sharp

¶20

Page No.# 3/4

¶21

weapons like axe and knife had attacked his above named brother in front of informant’s house, injuring his head by axe and stomach by knife, and he fell down, and on hearing his hue and cry the informant’s family members arrived at the spot and saw the petitioners running away with axe. It was stated that on asking his injured brother, he had informed that on 11.00 am of the same morning, the informant and his elder brother, namely, Khalid Ahmed, as witness, had given their statement to police regarding a case filed by one Abdul Jalil against the petitioners and therefore, the attack was made to kill him. It was informed that his brother was undergoing treatment in Silchar Medical College. The said FIR was registered as Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 76/2022. As per the entry made in the form of the FIR, the incident had occurred on 19.03.2022 at 2.00 pm. and information was received by the police station on 21.03.2022 at 9.30 pm.

¶22

The learned senior counsel for the petitioners had questioned the veracity of the contents of the said FIR by referring to the FIR of the other case, which was registered as Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 77/2022. As per the said FIR lodged by Abdul Jalil, the petitioners had entered into his land by breaking bamboo fencing and had cut three betel nut trees and when he tried to restrain them, he was threatened of being killed and they abused him with filthy language, but on arrival of nearby people, they had fled away. It was submitted by the learned senior counsel that as per the entry made in the form of FIR, the incident was of 19.03.2022 at 7.00 AM and the information was received by the police station on 21.03.2022 at 10.00 pm.

¶23

Accordingly, it was submitted that the entire story of the FIR lodged in Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 76/2022 was false.

¶24

On a perusal of the injury report contained in the case diary, it

¶25

Page No.# 4/4

¶26

is seen that the injured, namely, Abdul Sayed (spelt in this petition as Abdul Shahid), received the following injury, viz., (i) stitched wound of 5 cm in forehead; (ii) stitched wound of 3 cm in occipital area; (iii) stitched wound of 4 cm in abdomen; (iv) stitched wound of 3 cm in left lateral thigh. The said injuries were stated to be simple with blunt object.

¶27

There might be a delayed entry of FIR of Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 77/2022, but it does not negate the fact that the petitioners had brutally assaulted the victim. The I.O. had seized one 8 inch iron knife without handle on 19.03.2022. The I.O. has also examined Abdul Jalil, who had admitted that the two brothers of the victim had given their statement before the police. Several witnesses examined by the I.O. support the allegations made in the FIR, which was registered as Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 76/2022.

¶28

Therefore, the Court is of the considered opinion that as the petitioners are the alleged accused in Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 76/2022 and Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 77/2022, and in both the cases they are projected to be the perpetrators of offence, and allegedly used sharp and blunt weapons, this is not a fit case for granting the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, namely, (1) Ala Uddin, and (2) Fuzail Ahmed @ Halim in connection with Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 76/2022 under sections 341/326/307/34 of the IPC.

¶29

Accordingly, this petition for pre-arrest bail is rejected.

¶30

The case diary is returned.

¶31

Application is disposed of.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Ala Uddin and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ala Uddin and Anr. v. the State of Assam

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

Siraj Uddin Barbhuiya @ Siru Miya Barbhuiya and 9 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Sankar Rajbongshi Vs the State of Assam

Naren Gogoi Vs Prem Upadhayay

Md. Ubaidur Rahman @ Waidur Rahman Qusemi Vs the State of Assam

Atowar Ali Vs the State of Assam

Kobad Ali Vs the State of Assam