Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010181962024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1105/2024 RAMESH S/O LT. KALURAM R/O HOUSE NO. A2/45, GOLLI NO. 12, AYANAGAR EXTENSION PHASE-5, P.S. FATEHPUR, BERLI,SOUTH DELHI, NEW DELHI, PIN-110004. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:AMAL BASUMATARY S/O LT. JAHARLAL BASUMATARY VILL- NO. 1 SONAPUR P.O. ULTAPANI P.S. KOKRAJHAR DIST. KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN-78337 Advocate for the Petitioner : MD H R AHMED, M BEGUM,MR J ISLAM,MS. N NASRIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 18.06.2026 Heard Mr. H. R. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Baishya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. By this application filed under Section 528/438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner has made three numbers of prayers and they are (i) a direction to quash the Sessions Case No. 79/2014, registered under Section 448/376(2)(g)/323/34 IPC, pending before the learned Sessions Judge Kokrajhar, Assam, in respect of the petitioner, (ii) a direction that the petitioner be exempted from his appearance in the further trial of the case and (iii) for a direction to the trial court to complete the trial by conducting day to day trial of the case. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the FIR in connection with the aforesaid case was lodged on 11.09.2011, wherein, it was stated that on 10.09.2011, at about 11:00 PM to 12:00 PM, a group of four jawans from Saralpara SSB Camp of Kokrajhar had committed rape upon the wife of the informant. 4. In pursuant to the said FIR, charge sheet was submitted Vide Charge Sheet dated 12.08.2013, i.e. after a period of 2 years from the date of lodging of the FIR by arraying petitioners along with others as accused persons. Subsequently, the trial was initiated in the year 2015 and it is the case of the petitioner that till 2019, 13 witnesses were examined. It be stated here that in the Charge Sheet submitted, 23 persons were arrayed as witnesses, which includes both officials and non-official witnesses. Page No.# 3/4 5. It is the further case of the petitioner that after 2019, 6 (six) witnesses were examined till date. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the test identification parade was conducted during the investigation of the case and the petitioner was not identified by the victim in the same and that the petitioner has retired now and he is staying outside the state of Assam with his family members. 6. He further submits that 4 (four) witnesses are yet to be examined in the said trial, which include Official witnesses like the I.O and others. He submits that the trial has continued for more than ten years but yet it has not reached its final stage. 7. Mr. K. Baishya, the learned APP for the State submits that due to non- examination of the witnesses on account of their absence, the trial could not proceed in time and as such, delay has occurred. However, he submits that the trial should be completed as soon as possible. 8. On consideration of the submissions made by the counsels, this court finds as follows: The case was initiated in 2011, when the FIR was lodged and thereafter, the Charge Sheet was submitted in 2013 and the trial began in 2015 and till date, 19 witnesses were examined and 4 witnesses are yet to be examined. It is seen that the petitioner had retired from his service and his pension is withheld due to pendency of the said criminal case. 9. As such, for the ends of justice, it is directed that the Court of Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar, Assam should take up the trial of this case on a day to day basis as far as possible. Page No.# 4/4 10. It is also seen that the petitioner has to travel from other State to Kokrajhar to appear in the trial and since, he is a retired person, it is difficult for him to travel every now and then. As such, the learned Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar, should endeavour to the best of the capacity and finish the matter as soon as possible. Further, the petitioner is permitted to file an application before the Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar to dispense with his appearance if the learned court cannot try the case on day to day basis. The application should be considered by the learned Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar. 11. With the said observations and directions the petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant