Lalit Phukan vs The State Of Assam on 22 June, 2022

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Gauhati High Court

Lalit Phukan vs The State Of Assam on 22 June, 2022

Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia

                                                                    Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010123742022




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

                                Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./310/2022

            LALIT PHUKAN
            SON OF SRI RUDRA PHUKAN
            PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILL- BOLIMORA, NAKASARI,P.S. MARJANI
            DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM


            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM
            REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

            2:MR DWIJEN BORBORA
             SON OF LT. PADMAKANTA BORBORA
            R/O POKIMURI HABI GAON
            AIRFORCE STATION ROAD

             RRL
             JORHAT-6
             ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. A CHAUDHURY

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

                                   BEFORE
                  HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

                                          ORDER

Date : 22.06.2022.

Heard Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Addl.P.P. for the State of Assam.

Page No.# 2/3 This is an application u/s 397/401 of Cr.P.C., whereby the orders dated 23.03.2021 and 17.04.2021 passed by the ld. CJM, Jorhat in PRC case No. 1339/2019 arising out of Jorhat P.S. case No. 1704/2019 under Sections 406/420/468/385/34 of IPC, is put to challenge.

The petitioner has been shown as absconder in the charge-sheet. The court below issued summons to him. On 23.03.2021, the court below has held that the summons returned after proper service. Since the petitioner has absent on that day, for that reason, the court below directed to issue a bailable warrant of arrest of Rs.1000/- against him. On the next date i.e. on 17.04.2021, also a similar order was passed by the court below.

Mr. Mahajan submits that the trial court failed to appreciate the provision of law as laid down in 64 Cr.P.C. Mr. Mahajan further submits that the summons was not properly served upon the petitioner. According to Mr. Mahajan, the petitioner has been regularly attending two other cases in that court and if he had knowledge of the present case, he would have appeared in the court.

Mr. Barthakur, learned Addl.P.P., on the other hand submits that the petitioner should be given an simple direction to appear before the court below.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides.

The petitioner wants to face trial in the case. He apprehends that if he appears before the trial court, he might be remanded to custody because in the charge-sheet he has been shown as absconder.

Page No.# 3/3 This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to face the trial rather than sending him to judicial custody. Therefore, this Court directs the petitioner to approach the trial court and on such approach, the trial court shall release him on bail with sufficient surety. It is further directed that if the petitioner defaults in future in the proceeding, his bail shall liable to be cancelled.

With the aforesaid direction, the revision petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gauhati High Court