Gauhati High Court
Rahim Uddin Barbhuiya @ Abdul Rahim ... vs The State Of Assam on 9 April, 2020
Author: Ajai Lamba
Bench: Ajai Lamba
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010065502020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln. 812/2020
1:RAHIM UDDIN BARBHUIYA @ ABDUL RAHIM BARBHUIYA AND ANR.
S/O- LT. AKLIM RAJA BARBHUIYA, VILL- BAHADURPUR PART-I P.O.
RANGAUTI, P.S. AND DIST.- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM
2: AKLAS UDDIN LASKAR
S/O- LT. KALA MIA LASKAR
VILL- RATANPUR PART-I
P.O. RANGAUTI
P.S. AND DIST.- HAILAKANDI
ASSA
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE P.P., ASSAM
Counsel for the Applicant (s) : Mr. A. M. Barbhuiya, Advocate.
Counsel for the Respondent(s) : Mr. H. Sarma, Additional Public Prosecutor.
BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJAI LAMBA 09.04.2020:
1. The applicants, namely, (1) Rahim Uddin Barbhuiya @ Abdul Rahim Barbhuiya and (2) Aklas Uddin Laskar have filed this application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Algapur Police Station Case No.50/2020, under Sections 147/148/149/341/342/326/302 of IPC.
Page No.# 2/2
2. The Court proceedings have been conducted by means of creating a Virtual Court with the help of technology, so as to maintain distance between the staff, Advocates and the Presiding Judge.
3. I have heard Mr. A. M. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. H. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent.
4. Contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants were merely mediators in the land dispute and rather tried to defuse the situation. The applicants cannot be termed as accused.
5. I have gone through the contents of the FIR.
6. Gist of the accusation is that on 09.02.2020, at 1.00 PM, the complainant side was called for resolving land dispute. The allegation is that the accused side had intention to kill, and therefore, in a pre-meditated manner, assaulted Abhijit Sarma Mazumder, son of the complainant who died on the spot on account of injury caused with sharp edged weapons.
It has also been alleged that Protap Ray sustained injury on his head and different parts of his body with sharp edged weapons.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants has impressed on the Court that statements of witnesses have been recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and the said statements clearly suggest that the applicants are not aggressors/accused.
8. I hereby direct learned counsel for the prosecution to get hold of all the statements of witnesses, including the statement of Protap Ray to verify whether contention of learned counsel for the applicant is correct.
9. List on 05.05.2020.
10. Let a copy of this order be provided under the signature of the Court Master.
CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant