Gauhati High Court
Crl.Rev.P./364/2022 of ARIJIT ASLAM @ ARJOO Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. on 9 September 2026
GAHC010137402022 2026:GAU-AS:13211 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./364/2022 ARIJIT ASLAM @ ARJOO S/O AZIZUL HOQUE VILL- FAKIRPARA, KHARUPETIA P.S. DHULA DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY THE
GAHC010137402022
2026:GAU-AS:13211
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./364/2022
ARIJIT ASLAM @ ARJOO
S/O AZIZUL HOQUE
VILL- FAKIRPARA, KHARUPETIA
P.S. DHULA
DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
2:ABDUR RAHMAN
S/O HAZI MAZU SHEIKH
HOUSE NO. 523
WARD NO. 2
KHARUPETIA
P.S. KHARUPUETIA
DIST. DARRANG
ASSAM
PIN-78411
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K ROY, MD K RAHMAN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MRS S N KHANDAKAR,ALHAJJ I UDDIN,MR. M A
LASKAR
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
10.09.2026 Heard Mr. K. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Parashar, learned Additional P.P. appearing for the State respondent. This criminal revision petition has been preferred challenging an order dated 09.06.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M), whereby, a discharge application filed on behalf of the present petitioner as well as another co-accused as rejected. Subsequently, charges under Section 302/201 IPC were framed against the accused persons including the present petitioner. However, subsequently out of 11 witnesses, 9 witnesses have already been examined during the course of the trial. Only two witnesses i.e. the MO and the IO, remain to be examined. It, therefore, appears that because of subsequent events, there appears to be no purpose in examining the legality or correctness of the impugned order of framing charge. Having regard to the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction that the learned trial Court shall make every effort to conclude the proceedings at the earliest, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receiving a copy of this order. This criminal revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant