HANUFA NASRIN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri S.C. Biswas, learned counsel along with Shri F.A. Hassan, learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 State is represented by Shri R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. Though, the informant has been arrayed as the respondent No. 2. In view of the settled law holding the field, this Court is of the view that no notice is required to be issued to the respondent No. 2. In fact, the time which would be consumed for such notice to be served, immense prejudice would be suffered by the petitioner.

(2.) The instant application has been field under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. challenging a series of orders namely, orders dtd. 30/9/2021, 26/10/2021 and 11/11/2021 passed by the learned Court of Sessions Judge, Barpeta in Sessions Case No. 129/2021. By the impugned order dtd. 26/10/2021, while framing charges against the petitioner, he was again remanded to the judicial custody till 11/10/2021, on the same date, the petition filed for releasing the petitioner on bail has been rejected. By the second order dtd. 26/10/2021, the prayer for bail has been rejected with the observation that the offence was grave and the evidentially material in the record and the quantum of punishment likely to be inflicted upon the accused if she is convicted do not justify the grant of bail. By the order dtd. 11.11.2021, the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner for allowing to submit the bail bond pursuant to the order of the learned CJM granting bail has been rejected on the ground that trial has already commenced and bail petition filed before that Court was rejected.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that in connection with Barpeta P.S. Case No. 413/2021 under Sec. 302 of the IPC, the petitioner, who was arrested, had filed an application seeking bail. The said bail was considered on 28.05.2021 and coming to a conclusion that the Final Form was yet to be submitted and the mandatory period was over, the petitioner was allowed to go on bail of Rs.10,000.00 (Rupees Ten Thousand) with one surety of like amount. It is the case of the petitioner that though default bail was granted to him, he was not in a position to arrange the surety and other formalities and the same could be done only on 30.09.2021. However, the learned CJM, Barpeta had rejected the prayer by the aforesaid orders.