Crl.Pet./1306/2026 of SHAHIDUL ISLAM Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR on 24 September 2026

ORDER

25.09.2026 Heard Mr. P. Thakuria, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Barthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

2. In this petition, under Sections 528/442 of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the impugned order, dated 03.08.2026, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bajali, Pathsala, in Sessions Case No. 31/2022.

3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order, dated 03.08.2026, the learned Sessions Judge, Bajali, Pathsala (hereinafter, ‘Trial Court’), has allowed the Petition No. 1444/2026, filed by the respondent under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.

4. It is also to be noted here that the learned Public Prosecutor has filed the Petition No. 1444/2026, under Section 311 Cr.P.C., for allowing one Lutfur Neher and Tofazuul, as Court witnesses.

5. Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an accused in Sessions Case No. 31/2022. He further submits that on 03.08.2026, on a petition being filed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., for calling one Lutfur Neher and Tofazuul, as Court witness; the learned Trial Court has allowed the same, without furnishing a copy of the petition to the present petitioner and without recording his satisfaction that the examination of the aforesaid 2 (two) witnesses are required for just decision of the case. And in that view of the matter, Mr. Talukdar submits that the impugned order is illegal and therefore, he has contended to interfere with the same and to remand the matter to the learned Trial Court, to afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner upon the said petition.

6. Mr. Barthakur, learned APP also submits that the learned Trial Court has not recorded its satisfaction as to why examination of the aforementioned 2 (two) witnesses are necessary.

7. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned order, dated 03.08.2026, which is reproduced herein below for ready reference ꟷ “Accused person is present. The evidence of M.O.-J. Terrang is recorded through video conference. Seen the petition No. 1444/26 filed by learned P.P. u/s 311 Cr.P.C. praying to call Lutfur Neher & Tofazzul as Court witness.

Heard and prayer is allowed. Accordingly, issue summons to the above mentioned witnesses. Fix.: 28/09/2026 for further evidence.”

8. It appears from a bare perusal of the order that the learned Trial Court has not recorded any satisfaction as to why examination of the aforesaid 2 (two)

witnesses, namely, Lutfur Neher and Tofazuul, are required in this case.

9. And under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. (Section 348 BNSS, 2023), the Court has the power to summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or re-call and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or re-call and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.

10. In the instant case, no such satisfaction has been recorded by the learned Trial Court. In that view of the matter, this Court finds sufficient merit in this petition and accordingly, the impugned Order, dated 03.08.2026, stands set aside and quashed.

11. The matter stands remanded to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Bajali, Pathsala, for hearing the Petition No. 1444/2026, afresh, by affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and thereafter, to pass necessary order, in accordance with law.

12. In terms of the above, this criminal petition stands disposed of in its motion stage itself.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant