WOMENS LEAGAL AID CELL Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point involves in this Criminal Revision is whether the Revision petitioner, who is the Womens Legal Aid Cell, a registered society, has the authority to intervene in the bail petition of the accused persons which is pending for consideration before the learned Sessions Judge, Guwahati in Misc. Case No. 653 of 1995 (Shri Keshab Kalita Vs. State). As emerges from the contention of the petition, the Revision petitioner's Legal Aid Forum is a part of the common platform constituted by about 20 different women organisation to fight he cause of women in a better and more organised way and the Cell have attained a representative capacity entitling the platform to fight for any cause involving women. The Cell provides counsel, legal advice, assistance to needy woman client and whenever necessary to take up their cases in the courts of law that the Cell has taken up more than 500 such cases till now. That the Cell reacting to the incident of a gruesome murder, committed on 31.7.95 in the Guwahati City, at Ambari in which Karabi Das, a 32 years old lady and her 10 years old daughter were killed. It is alleged that this killing was done in a planned manner and the manner of the crime shocked the conscious mind of the people of the entire North East. Reacting to this atrocities on women by the offenders, the Organisation of the petitioner demand free and fair investigation to take the culprit into the book and registered its protest through procession and meetings and demanded - the Government to take speedy and appropriate action to apprehend all the culprits involved in this killing.

(2.) In this connection a case was registered being Latasil Police Station Case No. 70/95 and two [persons namely Shri Bhagya Kalita and Smti Geeta Kalita were arrested, who alleged to be the brain behind the killing and another accused, Shri Bhupen Medhi has been absconding, allegedly, with the connivance of the police. Petitioner also alleges slackness on the part of the investigating agency much to the apprehension and anxiety of the petitioner who feels that for this lack of diligence on the part of the investigating agency the said accused Medhi is able to avoid arrest till now. Petitioner apprehends that as a result of this gross negligence on the part of the Investigating Agency, the accused person may not be convicted for the offence.

(3.) It is also claimed by the petitioner that in a public interest petition being Civil Rule No. 3587/95 the petitioners also allowed by the High Court to intervene and support the contents of the Writ petitioner. But it is alleged, the petitioner's intervention as intervener in the bail petition No. Misc. Case No. 653/95 preferred by the brother of the accused Bhagya Kalita, has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, by his order dated 7.9.95 (Annexure- 2 to this petition) and therefore impugning the said order this petition has been preferred by the Cell.