Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/3 vs The State Of Assam on 27 May, 2022
Author: Ajit Borthakur
Bench: Ajit Borthakur
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010058952022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./667/2022
SITARAM GOUR AND 2 ORS
S/O LATE SANKAR GOUR
R/O VILL- RAHIMAPUR, P.S. DOKMOKA
DIST. KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM
PIN-782441
2: SRI BHOKSINGH GOUR @ LAKHICHARAN GOUR
S/O MANSING GOUR
R/O VILL- RAHIMAPUR
P.S. DOKMOKA
DIST. KARBI ANGLONG
ASSAM
PIN-782441
3: SRI SITARAM UJIR @ CHITU UJIR
S/O LATE KRISHNA UJIR
R/O VILL- RAHIMAPUR
P.S. DOKMOKA
DIST. KARBI ANGLONG
ASSAM
PIN-78244
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE LEARNED PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N K MURRY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR
ORDER
Date : 27.05.2022 Heard Mr. N. K. Murry, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent.
By this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the petitioners, namely, 1. Sri Sitaram Gour, 2. Sri Bhoksingh Gour @ Lakhicharan Gour, 3. Sri Sitaram Ujir @ Chitu Ujir, have prayed for grant of bail in connection with Dokmoka P.S. Case No. 32/2020 u/s 120(B)/143/302/201 of the IPC r/w Section 5 of the Assam Witch Hunting (Prohibition, Prevention and Protection) Act and registered as Special Case No. 2/2020 The scanned copy of the case record along with the case diary, as called for, is placed before this Court.
Mr. Murry, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioners, submits that the accused petitioners are in judicial custody since October, 2020 despite being absolutely innocent, who, in fact, resisted the deceased persons from committing illegal activities pertaining to witch hunting. Mr. Murry further submits that the deceased persons had caused death to one Rashmi Gaur, aged about 10 years, who was suffering from more than a year from mental illness. After filing of the charge- sheet and framing of charges, the learned Trial Court has examined 15 (fifteen) prosecution witnesses, who have failed to render any incriminating credible evidence against the accused petitioners. Therefore, Mr. Murry submits that further continuation of detention of the accused petitioners in the interest of the ongoing trial is, perhaps, not warranted.
Opposing the bail application, Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, submits that the instant case being serious in nature and the learned Trial Court is yet to complete the trial, if the liberty of bail is granted to the accused petitioners that Page No.# 3/3 may entail inordinate delay in disposal of the case by disrupting its course.
The prosecution case in brief is that on 03.09.2010 at about 8.30 PM, the FIR named accused persons took the mother of the victim Ramhamoti Halowa from the informant's house to the house of Gaonburah. Thereafter, the victim and one Vijoy were assaulted by the FIR named accused persons by dao, lathi etc., accusing them of playing witch craft. The informant and her sister tried to save their mother, but they were also assaulted. Due to the assault, both the victim was succumbed to their injuries. After death, both the dead bodies were taken to a nearby hill side and burned the dead bodies.
On perusal of the case record, it is revealed that as many as seventeen number of accused persons are charged under eight heads, inter-alia, under Sections 149/302 of the IPC read with Section 5 of the Assam Witch Hunting (Prohibition, Prevention and Protection) Act, 2015. 15 (fifteen) number of prosecution witnesses, out of a list of 42 (forty two) witnesses, are examined so far in the case. The case involves causing brutal murder of two persons accusing them of playing black magic on the Gaonburah's niece, who fell sick in a village function. The evidence so far recorded in the case and the evidence collected during investigation by the Investigating Officer do not prima facie reveal absolute innocence of the accused petitioners.
Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that if the liberty of bail is granted to the accused petitioners on the ground of length of detention, the ongoing trial of the case, where a large number of accused persons are facing trial, is sure to be hampered.
For the above stated reasons, the bail application stands rejected.
It is, however, directed that the learned Trial Court shall make an endeavour for early disposal of the case.
This disposes of the bail application.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant