Back
2022 Supreme(Gau) 1354
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
M.R.Pathak, J.
Poresh Soren - Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam - Respondent
Bail. Appln. No. 1174 of 2022
Decided On : 27-06-2022
Advocate Appeared:
Pran Bora, Advocate, Kabyashruti Bhattacharyya, Advocate, Dhanesh Das, Advocate
The judgment established the principle that the right to liberty must be balanced with the interest of society and the fair trial of the case, taking into account the nature of the offence, the evidence, and the potential impact of the accused's release on the trial and witnesses.
Headnote:
Bail - Criminal Procedure Code - Ss. 120(B)/147/148/323/302/149 IPC - 120(B)/147/148/323/302/149 - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Indian Air Force personnel, sought bail in a case where he was charged under Ss. 120(B)/147/148/323/302/149 of the IPC for his alleged involvement in a murder case. The petitioner argued that he was wrongly implicated and that there was no evidence linking him to the crime.
Finding of the Court:
The Court considered the evidence, including the post mortem examination report, and the arguments presented by both the petitioner's counsel and the public prosecutor. The Court noted that the petitioner's release on bail would not pose a threat to society or the witnesses, and that his continued custody could lead to his discharge from the Indian Air Force. The Court granted bail to the petitioner with specific conditions to ensure compliance.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted bail given the charges against him and the evidence presented in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court balanced the petitioner's right to liberty with the interest of the society and the fair trial of the case. It considered the nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of the evidence, and the potential impact of the petitioner's release on the trial and witnesses. The Court also took into account the petitioner's status as an Air Force personnel and the absence of prior criminal involvement.
Final Decision: The Court granted bail to the petitioner on the conditions that he would not tamper with evidence, pressurize witnesses, or commit similar offences. The Court also emphasized that any violation of the bail conditions could result in the petitioner's return to custody.
JUDGMENT :
M.R.PATHAK, J.
1. Heard Mr. Pran Bora, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Kabyashruti Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dhanesh Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State.
2. By this application under Sec. 439 CrPC, the petitioner, namely, Sri Poresh Soren, is seeking bail in Chabua Police Station Case No.100/2020 corresponding to G.R. No.1815/2020, which is now pending trial before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh in Sessions Case No. 67/2020, wherein charge under Ss. 120(B)/147/148/323/302/149 of the IPC have been framed against the 12 accused persons of the case including the petitioner.
3. Since the date of his arrest on 25/5/2020 in said Chabua PS Case No.100/2020, the petitioner is in custody.
4. Earlier, the petitioner with other accused persons of said Chabua PS Case preferred bail application before this Court for their bail in said Sessions Case No.67/2020. Though the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand, reported in (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240, State of U.P. Vs. Amarmani Tripathi, reported in (2005) 8 SCC 21 and Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 were placed before the Court for the petitioner in his last bail application i.e., in B.A. No. 2238/2021, but after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Public Prosecutor, Assam, the Court considering the materials and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. NCT, Delhi, reported in (2001) 4 SCC 280, Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 528, State of U.P. Vs. Kishanpal, reported in (2008) 16 SCC 73, Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 446, State of Bihar Vs.Amit Kumar, reported in (2017) 13 SCC 751, Prasad Shrikant Purohit Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2018) 11 SCC 458 and Sudha Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2021) 4 SCC 781 rejected the bail of the petitioner on 23/11/2021. It is to be noted herein that at that stage evidence of only two prosecution witnesses were recorded.
5. Mr. Bora, learned Senior counsel stated that the petitioner is a NC(e) [Non-Combatants enrolled] with the Indian Air Force and serving in the 128 Helicopter Unit, Air Force, Air Force Station, Mohanbari, Dibrugarh. It is also stated that the petitioner is no way connected with the case.
6. Mr. Bora, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the informant of said Chabua P.S. Case No.100/2020, Lakhidhar Gogoi himself is the victim of the incident, but in the FIR of the case, the said victim complainant did not name the petitioner as an accused.
7. Mr. Bora, learned Senior counsel also stated that because of his arrest in said Chabua PS Case on 25/5/2020 and he being in judicial custody, lodged at Central jail, Dibrugarh since the date of his arrest holding him to be an accused in the murder of a local youth by a group of persons in the neighborhood on the night of 23/5/2020, the Squadron Leader and Commanding Officer of said 128 Helicopter Unit, Air Force Station, Mohanbari by his commutation dtd. 25/5/2022 informed the wife of the petitioner that if he is not released on bail then he will be discharged from the Indian Air Force w.e.f., 30/4/2023 (A/N) and his name shall be Struck off strength of the Indian Air Force w.e.f. 1/5/2023. In that regard, Mr. Bora placed the communication dtd. 25/5/2022 of the Squadron Leader and Commanding Officer, 128 Helicopter Unit, Air Force Station, Mohanbari, Dibrugarh, Annexure-V to this petition.
8. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is no past record regarding his involvement in any criminal case, nor he is involved in the present case, but have been wrongly implicated in the case.
9. It is also submitted that though these facts were placed before the learned Additional Sessions Jud
