Tripura High Court
Court On Its Own Motion vs Md. Helal Uddin Alias Hilal Mia on 25 March, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 TRI 231
Author: Sanjay Karol
Bench: Sanjay Karol
Page 1 of 18
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
_A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
Criminal Petition No.13/2019.
Court on its own motion
............... Petitioner.
Vrs.
1. Md. Helal Uddin alias Hilal Mia,
S/o Khalek Mia, Village - Yakubnagar,
Bhagyapur, PS - Dharmanagar,
Dist. - North Tripura, Pin - 799251.
2. The State of Tripura.
............ Respondents.
_B_E_F_O_R_E_
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KAROL
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Debajit Biswas, Legal Aid Counsel.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. A Roy Barman, Addl. P. P.,
Mr. Sankar Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
Date of judgment : 25th March, 2019.
Whether fit for reporting : Yes No
√
J U D G M E N T (O R A L)
On 16th December, 2018, FIR No.DMN PS 191 of 2018 was registered at Dharmanagar Police Station under Section(s) 20(ii)(c)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act, 1985). The said FIR was registered on the basis of complaint lodged by Company Commander, F. Company, 166 BN., Border Security Force(BSF). The complaint reads as under:
"WO.OPS/FIR/F/166BN/18/681 OFFICE OF THE COY. COMDR.
F‟ Coy, 166 Bn., BSF.
BOP Yakubnagar Dated 16th December, 2018 Page 2 of 18 The Office In Charge, Police Station Dharmanagar, North Tripura.
SUB:- LODGING FIR.
It is to inform you that at about 1915 hours an information was received from DC (G) field „G‟ team Panisagar from their reliable source that ¾ miscreants is moving towards Border with some contrabands. The QRT of „F‟ Coy, 166 Bn. BSF, BOP Yakubnagar led by ASI Ashwani Kumar and 03 other along with HC/G Ravindra Sarkar rushed to the area and found 04 miscreants with some pkts moving towards border near IBB fence and when they were challenged by QRT party to stop; they ran towards India side. Our jawans chased them, out of which one miscreant fall down on ground and was caught with one sealed pkt of dry cannabis, namely Helal Mia S/o Khaliq Mia, age 24 yrs R/O Yakubnagar, P.O. Bhagyapur, P.S. Dharmanagar (North Tripura) and another 03 miscreants identified as Kalam Mia S/O Sona Mia R/O Jollabazar, Vill Yakubnagar, Kadir Mia S/o Surman Ali R/O Vill Bhagyapur and Enam Uddin S/o Maya Mia R/O Vill Yakubnagar fled from point of incident by taking advantage of bamboo and undulating ground leaving another 03 packets of dry cannabis at the spot.
"A. SEIZED ITEMS :-
1. Dry Cannabis (Ganja) : 04 Nos Pkts.
Pkt No. 01-7.3 Kg. Pkt No. 02- 7.4kg, Pkt No. 03-7.3 Kg Pkt No. 04- 10.8kg, (Total weight-32.8 KG with packing material).
2. Market Value : Rs.5,000/- (Approx) per kg.
3. Micromax Mobile : 01 Nos. (Model No. V-409 IMEI No.911616701177801
4. SIM : 02 Nos.
Jio Sim No.8991865040002715983.
Airtel Sim No.8991160990 004766791 U.
5. Market value : Rs.1,800/-
6. Total seizure value : Rs. 1,65,800/- (Rupees one lakh sixty five thousand eight hundred only).
B. PLACE OF OCCURRENCE :-
Page 3 of 18
1. Date : 15/12/2018.
2. Time. : 1915 HRS.
3. Name of Bop. : BOP Yakubnagar.
4. BP reference : 1825-MP
5. Distance from IB : 300 Mtrs. (Approx).
6. Distance from BOP : 1500 Mtrs (Approx).
7. Counter Part BOP : FULTALA.
8. Distance from counterpart : 2.5 KMS(Approx).
BOP
9. Fence/unfenced : Fenced Area.
10.Type of seizure : Claimed.
11.Out/incoming : Outgoing.
12.No and Types or Rds. fired : NIL.
by own party.
13.Details of Party with : 1.No.860437462 ASI Ashwani
Complete details. Kumar.
2.No.867331732 ASI M.Sarkar.
3.No.93162097 HC/G Ravindra
Sarkar.
4.No.121108605 CT Ratan
Regon.
5.No.120508251 CT Sunil."
2. Helal Mia also revealed that he was a cattle smuggler and under mentioned miscreants are also involve in cattle smuggling, fence breach (damage of Govt. property) smuggling of Yaba tablet, Cannabis (Ganja) and active in AOR of the Bishnupur, Rangna and Yakubnagar.
(a) Farooq Mia S/o Faki Mia, Age - 30 yrs., R/o Yakubnagar.
(b) Gutka (Nick name) S/o Riyaz Mia, Age - 15 yrs.
R/o Yakubnagar.
(c) Kadir Mia, S/o Surman Ali, Age - 26 yrs. R/o Bhagyapur, Dharmanagar.
(d) Enam Aminul, S/o Fayad Mia, Age 23 yrs. R/o Yakubnagar, Dharmanagar.
(e) Phool Kumar, S/o Kunju Singha, Age 24 yrs. R/O Bhagyapur, Dharmanagar,
(f) Lala Mia, S/o Jamir Ali, Age. 30 yrs., R/o Toolgaon, Dharmanagar.
(g) Munjha Mia, S/o Jamir Ali, Age. 26 yrs., R/o Toolgaon, Dharmanagar.
3. It is therefore requested to lodge an FIR against apprehended smuggler Helal Mia, S/o Khaliq Mia and other miscreant involved in the incident (mentioned in Para-I). The apprehended smuggler handed over to you with seized items for further necessary action.
Page 4 of 18
Encl. - 1) Seizure Memo.
2) Medical Certificate.
3) 04 Nos. Pkts (32.8 kg including packing material).
- Sd -
COY. COMMANDER „F‟ COY, 166 BN. BSF."
[2] Quite apparently, 3/4 miscreants were found to have been moving, carrying some contraband substance towards the international border and seeing the jawans, they all fled away by throwing away the packets containing the contraband substance i.e. Ganja. But, however, one of them, namely, Hilal Mia alias Helal Uddin, S/o Khaliq Mia was apprehended. Undisputedly, from his custody one packet containing the said contraband substance was recovered.
[3] It is a matter of record that from the spot only accused Hilal Mia alias Helal Uddin was apprehended. It is also a matter of record that on 14th January, 2019 one Kalam Mia whose complicity in the crime was also suspected, approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The said case was registered as AB No. 03 of 2019, titled as Kalam Mia v. State of Tripura, in which, on 18th January, 2019, notice was issued. Though not recorded but on 1st February, 2019, it was brought to the notice of the Court that the said bail applicant stood falsely implicated on account of prior reporting of misconduct of a BSF jawan, inasmuch as, sister of the said bail applicant had lodged a complaint of harassment and molestation. Consequently, Mr. Amitabha Roy Barman, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Page 5 of 18 appearing for the State-respondent, was asked to ascertain the factual information. When the matter was listed next i.e. on 19th February, 2019, this Court having learnt that the said bail applicant Helal Uddin, stood released on bail and that allegation of false implication as a counterblast being false, passed the following order:
"19/02/2019.
Shri A.R. Barman, learned Additional Public Prosecutor invites attention of this Court to order dated 7th February, 2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Case No.DMN PS 191 of 2018 granting bail to the accused, namely, Md. Helal Uddin which reads as under :
"Accused Md. Helal Uddin is produced from JC after expiry of remand period.
A bail petition for and on behalf of custody accused Md. Helal Uddin is filed.
Learned PP is present for the
prosecution.
Heard from the merit of above bail
petition.
Ld. Counsel for the custody accused
submits that in fact contravene substance i.e. dried ganja was allegedly found and seized of weighing 10.8 kg only from the possession of the custody accused but the complainant and thereafter, IO shown the total weight of contravene substance as 32.08 kg. In the circumstances the custody accused alone cannot be responsible the possession of more than 10.8 k.g. and if it is so, then the mandatory provision of section 37 of the Act will not come to claim. And by this time the accused has under gone detention for more than 55 days. So, Page 6 of 18 the custody accused may be released on bail at any condition.
Ld. PP for the prosecution strongly opposed the bail petition as the case has been registered showing informant of commercial quantity and besides this is an initial stage of the investigation.
I have perused the FIR, seizure list and other relevant investigation paper of the case and consider. Seizure list shows that total 32.08 kg. dried graja was seized in this Case. FIR and other relevant papers including forwarding report disclose that total 10.8 kg dried ganja was found and seized from the possession of accused Md. Helal Page 2 of 3 Uddin and the remaining quantity of dried ganja of the seized quantity were of other three accused persons who had fled away. This, in fact the custody accused Helal Uddin had conscious possession of quantity of 10.8 kg dried ganja only. The accused till date has under gone detention for more than 55 days. Therefore, considering the quantity of seized contravene substance from the possession of accused and his undergone detention period of in inclined to allow the custody accused to go ad-interim bail till 28-02-2019. The custody accused Md. Helal Uddin may find bail till 28- 02-2019 on furnishing a bail bond of ₹50,000/- each with a surety with a condition that he shall report to the IO of this case one in a week and he shall also not tempered with the evidence of the case in default to JC till 18- 02-2019. Inform I/O of the case."
Learned counsel who appears on behalf of accused seeks parity on the same ground. It is argued by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985 and more specifically Page 7 of 18 Section 29 of the said Act perhaps escaped attention of the Court.
Before any further orders are passed let court notice be issued to Md. Helal Uddin son of Khalig Miah as to why order granting bail be not cancelled. Notice be served through Superintendant of Police, North Tripura, Dharmanagar.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor undertakes to communicate the order to the concerned officer through ordinary mode including electronic mode.
Record of proceedings arising out of FIR No.2018 DMN 191, dated 16-12-2018 registered at North Tripura, Dharmanagar be called for through special messenger.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further points out that no complaint(Annexure-2) made by Smt. Nekjan Bibi, wife of late Shri Karim Miah, the alleged sister of the bail applicant, namely, Kalam Miah was ever lodged with the concerned police station for the record does not speaks so.
He further points out that on 2nd January, 2019 the said lady did file a complaint before the concerned Magistrate and on the basis of order passed therein, FIR stands registered. He further clarifies that on the roles of BSF there is no person by the name of Laxmi Thand, who allegedly tried to outrage the modesty of the said complainant and, as such, the allegation of the bail applicant of having been involved in the alleged crime, only as a counterblast to the said complaint, is ex facie, false and incorrect.
Notice is made returnable on 21-02-2019. Registrar Judicial shall ensure copy of the order be made available to Shri A.R. Barman, learned Additional Public Prosecutor".
Page 8 of 18[4] Pursuant to Court notice, on 21st February, 2019, Helal Uddin appeared through his counsel and as prayed for, was afforded opportunity to file response. Consequently, the matter was adjourned.
[5] On 1st March, 2019, an interesting turn of events took place. None voiced any concern of false implication or inaction on the part of the authorities in addressing the complaint of alleged molestation. In fact, unconditionally, Kalam Mia sought liberty to withdraw the anticipatory bail application which was allowed but with a condition that the case pertaining to the accused Helal Uddin be registered as a separate petition. Consequently, on the said date, the bail application was disposed of in the following terms:
"The applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(i) Admit this bail application;
(ii) Issue Notice upon the Respondent;
(iii) Call for the records;
AND
(iv) After hearing the parties be pleased to allow pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in the event of his arrest in connection with Dharmanagar P.S. Case No.191/2018."
It is stated at the Bar, which fact is not disputed by Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, that the present bail applicant stands arrested and as such, the present bail application has become infructuous.
Accordingly, the instant bail application stands disposed of as such.
However, on 19.02.2019 this Court had issued show-cause notice to co-accused Md. Helal Uddin on Page 9 of 18 whose behalf Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel, has put in appearance.
Accused Helal Uddin has also filed his response.
Registry is directed to register a separate petition to be termed as "Court on its own motion"
arraying accused Md. Helal Uddin alias Helal Mia, S/O. Khalek Mia, Village-Yakubnagar, Bhagyapur, P.O. Chandrapur, P.S. Dharmanagar, District-North Tripura, PIN-799251 as party respondent along with the State of Tripura.
The record of the instant petition along with the order sheets be placed on the record of such petition, which is directed to be listed on 06.03.2019.
Sri Debajit Biswas, learned counsel, who is sitting in the Court, is requested to assist the Court as a legal aid counsel. He shall be entitled to fees as per the relevant legal aid rules.
Registry to supply complete paper book to Sri Biswas, learned legal aid counsel.
Registrar (Judicial) shall ensure compliance of the order accordingly."
Hence, this Court taking suo motu cognizance of the matter, in the interest of justice, directed the Registry to register a separate petition.
[6] Mr. Sankar Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for respondent-Helal Uddin, has made the following submissions :
(a) This Court does not have the jurisdictional authority to call for the records and rectify the mistake(s), if any, in passing of the orders granting bail by the trial Court and (b) It cannot be said with certainty that the contraband substance recovered from Page 10 of 18 the conscious possession of the accused was of commercial quantity. Even if the statement of the investigating officer (I.O.) is to be believed that one packet weighing 10.08 kg of contraband substance was recovered from the conscious possession of the accused, rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply in this case.
[7] On the other hand, Mr. Amitabha Ray Barman, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, emphatically supports the action taken by the Court in suo motu calling for the records for examining as to whether the trial Court erred in correctly applying the provisions of the law and more specifically Section 29 of the NDPS Act. When queried as to why the State did not prefer any appeal, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor states that perhaps such fact was never brought to the notice of the authorities for it was the duty of the Public Prosecutor dealing with the case before the trial Court to have done so.
[8] Record of the Court below perused. Quite apparently, while passing order granting bail, the trial Judge was influenced of the fact that the contraband substance recovered from the accused was 10.08 kg of dried ganja which was less than the commercial quantity. Also, accused had already suffered incarnation for more than 55 days.
[9] Significantly, the said order dated 7th of February, 2019 granting bail (ad-interim) by the trial Judge does take note of the fact that the total quantity recovered was 32.08 kg. Orally this Page 11 of 18 Court is informed that the trial Court has been extending the bail from time to time.
[10] The Jurisdictional issue of this Court stands considered by this Court, elaborately, in Bail Application No.149/2018 titled as Haricharan Biswas on behalf of accused Krishna Kumar v. The State of Tripura and as such, need not labour hereupon, save and except to reiterate that this Court has got sufficient power to do so. For the purpose of reference, the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced hereunder:
"POWER OF THE HIGH COURT IN QUASHING ORDERS GRANTING BAIL AGAINST THE SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW :
59. That the High Court has got inherent power to cancel an order granting bail, which is wholly unsustainable in law stands well settled by the Apex Court in Rasiklal v. Kishore S/o Khanchand wadhwani,(2009) 4 SCC 446 (2 Judge Bench);
Rajballav Prasad (supra); Doongar Singh and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan,(2018) 13 SCC 741 (2 Judge Bench) and Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat and Ors.,(2018) 11 SCC 129 (2 Judge Bench).
The amplitude of the power of the Constitutional Court be it under the Constitution or the statute (Cr.P.C) is wide enough to correct any illegality, either on the asking of the State or on its own motion. Even the Court cannot be unmindful of the fact that such power is being exercised in a case where allegedly the accused is involved in dealing with huge quantity of contraband substance. Under all circumstances, Court has to strike a balance vis-a-vis the liberty of an individual and the societal rights.
Page 12 of 18
60. What does the Court do when one finds the prosecution to have accepted the illegality of the order? Should this Court remain silent? Should this Court, not exercise its inherent powers? Should this Court in public interest not rectify the mistake and the illegality committed by the Courts below, which stands accepted by the prosecution, for whatever reasons? Should this Court not prevent the abuse of process of law or is it that this Court should not interfere to secure the ends of justice?
61. The Apex Court in Popular Muthiah v. State represented by Inspector of Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296 (2 Judge Bench) inter alia observed that:
"30. In respect of the incidental or supplemental power, evidently, the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction irrespective of the nature of the proceedings. It is not trammelled by procedural restrictions in that :
(i) power can be exercised suo motu in the interest of justice. If such a power is not conceded, it may even lead to injustice to an accused.
(ii) Such a power can be exercised concurrently with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction and no formal application is required to be filed therefore.
(iii) It is, however, beyond any doubt that the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not unlimited. It can inter alia be exercised where the Code is silent where the power of the court is not treated as exhaustive, or there is a specific provision in the Code; or the statute does not fall within the purview of the Code because it involves application of a special law. It acts ex debito justitiae. It can, thus, do real and substantial justice for which alone it exists."Page 13 of 18
62. However, such power has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection which the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Ors., (2011) 14 SCC 770 (2 Judge Bench), has explained as under :
"60. The rule of inherent powers has its source in the maxim "Quadolex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur id sine quo res ipsa, esse non protest" which means that when the law gives anything to anyone, it gives also all those things without which the thing itself could not exist. The order cannot be passed by-passing the procedure prescribed by law. The court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot direct a particular agency to investigate the matter or to investigate a case from a particular angle or by a procedure not prescribed in Cr.P.C. Such powers should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any court. Courts must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles.
61. To inhere means that it forms a necessary part and belongs as an attribute in the nature of things. The High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is crowned with a statutory power to exercise control over the administration of justice in criminal proceedings within its territorial jurisdiction. This is to ensure that proceedings undertaken under the Cr.P.C. are executed to secure the ends of justice. For this, the Legislature has empowered the High Court with an inherent authority which is repository under the Statute. The Legislature therefore clearly intended the existence of such power in the High Court to control proceedings initiated under the Cr.P.C. Conferment of such inherent power might be necessary to Page 14 of 18 prevent the miscarriage of justice and to prevent any form of injustice. However, it is to be understood that it is neither divine nor limitless. It is not to generate unnecessary indulgence. The power is to protect the system of justice from being polluted during the administration of justice under the Code."
63. The Apex Court in K V Rajendran v.
Superintendant of Police, CBCID South Zone, Chennai and Ors.,(2013) 12 SCC 480, (3 Judge Bench) has further clarified that the extraordinary power must be exercised with the object of instilling faith of the people in the system. The principles stands reiterated in E Sivakumar v. Union of India and Ors.,(2018) 7 SCC 365 (2 Judge Bench).
64. The revisional power of the High Court, under Cr.P.C., is also extensive and as has been held by the Apex Court in Krishnan and Anr. v. Krishnaveni and Anr.,(1997) 4 SCC 241 (3 Judge Bench) that the High Court would be well within its right to call for the records and examine correctness, illegality or propriety of any order passed by the Court below. In fact in Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 749 the Apex Court emphasized the use of such power for ascertaining as to whether the subordinate Courts/Tribunals functioned within the limits of its authority for ensuring that "stream of administration of justice remain clean and pure".
65. Further the Apex Court in Rajballav Prasad (supra) held as under:
"15. We may also, at this stage, refer to the judgment in the case of Puran v. Rambilas & Anr.[5], wherein principles while dealing with application for bail as well as petition for cancellation of bail were delineated and elaborated. Insofar as entertainment of application for bail is concerned, the Court Page 15 of 18 pointed out that reasons must be recorded while granting the bail, but without discussion of merits and demerits of evidence. It was clarified that discussing evidence is totally different from giving reasons for a decision. This Court also pointed out that where order granting bail was passed by ignoring material evidence on record and without giving reasons, it would be perverse and contrary to the principles of law. Such an order would itself provide a ground for moving an application for cancellation of bail. This ground for cancellation, the Court held, is different from the ground that the accused misconducted himself or some new facts call for cancellation.
16. The present case falls in the former category as the appellant is not seeking cancellation of bail on the ground that the respondent misconducted himself after the grant of bail or new facts have emerged which warrant cancellation of bail. That would be a case where conduct or events based grant of bail are to be examined and considered. On the other hand, when order of grant of bail is challenged on the ground that grant of bail itself is given contrary to principles of law, while undertaking the judicial review of such an order, it needs to be examined as to whether there was arbitrary or wrong exercise of jurisdiction by the Court granting bail. If that be so, this Court has power to correct the same."
(emphasis supplied).
66. Hence this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India as also the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has ample power to call for the records of the Court below and make correction of Page 16 of 18 any illegality found while adjudicating applications for grant of bail."
[11] A careful perusal of the complaint reveals that at the international border, jawans had seen 3/4 persons, whom they termed as „miscreants‟, allegedly carrying some contraband substance. They were moving together in a concerted manner. Seeing the jawans, some of them threw away the packets carried by them and fled away from the spot. In a chase, only one of them i.e. Helal Uddin the present responent was apprehended and arrested. From his possession one packet containing ganja i.e. a contraband substance under the Act, was recovered. Whether it was of 7.3 or 10.08 kg., at this point in time, would not matter, for all the accused persons, as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor rightly points out, were engaged in a conspiracy of committing an illegal act, with a common intention. Prima facie it is evidently clear. The law takes care of such a situation and circumstances of abetment/criminal conspiracy to commit a crime, an offence which is punishable under the Act and it would be immaterial as to whether such act was actually committed or not, for it would be liable for punishment.
[12] In the instant case, all the accused had acted in a concerted manner; moving together; perhaps each one of them carrying the packets containing the contraband substance; at the same place, manner and time; with an intent of committing an illegal act. The meeting of mind or the agreement, so to say, was ever in existence, at all times and situations. In fact self-exhibiting, Page 17 of 18 requiring no corroboration at all. All that the trial Court ought to have considered was the complaint, as it read, the provisions of IPC and the NDPS Act and its proper and complete application to the attending facts and circumstances. Now, without even discussing the applicability or relevancy thereof, the trial Judge presupposed the case put up by the accused to be the gospel truth and by accepting such version ignoring that of the prosecution, passed an order of bail. It is under these circumstances, the Court finds the trial Judge to have committed a grave mistake or an error which is apparent on the face of record; perversity, which has resulted into an illegality.
[13] Learned counsel invites attention of this Court to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Amar Singh Ramjibhai Barot v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2005 7 SCC 550 (2 Judge Bench). Well, on this issue, this Court need not say anything save and except that the decision pertains to the appreciation of evidence with the conclusion of trial and does not deal with non- consideration of Section 29 of the NDPS Act at the stage of bail. [14] In the attending facts and circumstances, this Court finds the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act to apply with equal force and not to have been considered by the Court below. It is in this backdrop, the Court, in view of the aforesaid discussions, and the law extensively and elaborately discussed and dealt with by this Court in Krishna Kumar (supra) interfere with the order dated 7th February, 2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Page 18 of 18 Dharmanagar in Case No.DMN PS 191 of 2018 titled as The State v. Md. Hilal Miah & Others granting bail to accused namely, Md. Helal Uddin alias Hilal Mia is hereby quashed and set aside, reserving liberty to the accused to file a fresh application seeking, grant of bail in accordance with law. The instant petition stands disposed of accordingly.
[15] Bail bond of accused Md. Helal Uddin alias Hilal Mia stands cancelled and he shall surrender before the trial Court forthwith.
[16] It is made clear that any observation made herein, shall not be construed to be an expression/opinion on the merits of the case, for each case has to be dealt with, on its own merits and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced of the same.
Record be sent back immediately.
(SANJAY KAROL),CJ.
Sukhendu/Anjan