Advocate Rinima Begum Murder Case| 'Sessions Court Ignored Relevant Materials': Gauhati HC Cancels Bail Granted To 2 Men

A bench of Justice Robin Phukan observed that while granting bail to the accused, the Sessions Judge did not discuss the existence of a prima facie case, the nature of the accusation, the severity of punishment, apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with, or the apprehension of a threat to the complainant.

“Relevant materials, indicating prima facie involvement of the accused and nature and gravity of the offence and the punishment prescribed for the same and also the societal interest, were ignored, instead, taken into account irrelevant materials such as non availability of FSL report with the charge sheet, failing to arrest accused Rafikul Islam and filing of charge-sheet without completion of investigation, which have no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused,” the Court remarked.

Given this, the Court cancelled bail granted to 2 accused, noting that the order granting bail to the respondent/opposite party No.2 and 3 had been passed in contravention of establishing well jurisprudence of bail.

The case in brief

As per the prosecution's case, on March 21, 2022, at about 7.30 pm, the deceased, Rinima Begum, was murdered while she was getting into a car to return back from a clinic where she went for her sister's checkup. During the investigation, the IO arrested the accused, Mokdom Ali and Mahibul Hoque, and forwarded them to the court.

Thereafter, on completion of the investigation, the IO laid a charge sheet against accused Mokdom Ali and Mahibul Hoque to stand trial in the court under sections 120B/341/302/201 IPC and submitted a Final Report against accused Jumma @ Abdur Rahman for want of evidence.

As per the chargesheet filed against the accused persons, Accused Mokdom Ali had planned with Mohibul Hoque to eliminate Rinima Begum, having been annoyed with the litigation instituted by her and then Mohibul Hoque engaged his friend Rokibul Islam fixed the price at Rs.10,00,000/. Rakibul had engaged accused Mostab Ali and Abbas Ali in executing the plan.

Seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the accused (Mokdom Ali and Mohibul Hoque) in June 2022 by Sessions Judge, Barpeta, an interlocutory application was preferred by one Harun Ali under section 439(2) CrPC.

It was argued, inter alia, that the trial court erred in law in granting bail to the respondent without considering the gravity of the offence where the accused allegedly hired a professional killer to eliminate someone involved in a civil case.

Additionally, it was pointed out that the trial court had noted that without collecting the report from the FSL, the I.O. submitted the charge sheet so that the accused could not avail the benefit of section 167(2) CrPC.

However, it was argued that the trial court overlooked the fact that the FSL report pertains to bloodstains found on the clothes of the deceased and the car mattress, which do not directly implicate the accused. Therefore, such evidence should not constitute grounds for granting bail.

It was also contended that the Sessions Judge had noted that one accused, Rafikul Islam, was shown as an absconder in the charge sheet and that procuring his attendance and starting the trial would take considerable time.

Further, it was also contended that the the premeditated manner of the execution and its societal impact were not adequately addressed, rendering the bail order legally flawed and deserving of reversal.

On the other hand, counsel for the Accused, Mokdom Ali, submitted that the I.O. had hurriedly submitted a charge sheet against him without collecting the FSL report to deny statutory bail.

Counsel for the accused Mohibul Hoque @ Moni stated that his name is not even named in the FIR and that he had no connection with the alleged offence. The I.O. had hurriedly completed the investigation and submitted a charge sheet without the FSL report.

High Court's observations

Considering the entire circumstances of the case, the High Court noted that the Sessions Judge had considered the irrelevant factors while granting bail to the respondent.

The Court also noted that the offence was indeed heinous in nature wherein a practising Lawyer of Barpeta was executed in a pre-planned manner over a period of time, hiring professional killers.

The Court noted that the enmity of accused Mokdom Ali with the deceased Rinima Begum was writ large from the factum of admitted pendency of a Civil Case between him and the deceased before the Civil Court.

The Court also understood that the motive for killing the deceased was well discernible from the materials placed on record, and though there was no direct threat to the family members of the petitioner, a veiled threat is always looming large in the mind of the family of the deceased that similar consequences may happen in their case also because of the pendency of the Civil Case.

Importantly, the Court also considered the manifest illegalities in granting bail to the respondents/opposite parties, noting that the charge sheet was submitted on June 20, 2022, and on that day, no bail petition was pending before the learned Sessions Judge.

The Court noted that the application for granting bail was filed on June 24, 2022, and there was no prayer for granting default bail.

The Court also referred to another “disturbing” fact that came into light from the scanned copy of the record of the learned trial court: an attempt was made to manipulate/tamper with the date of the accused Mokdom Ali's arrest in the Arrest Mem. The date of arrest, March 23, 2022, was erased and overwritten as March 22, 2022.

As a result, the application for cancellation of bail was allowed. The impugned order of the Sessions Judge granting bail to the respondents/opposite parties was cancelled, and the respondents-accused were directed to surrender before the Sessions Judge, Barpeta, forthwith.

Case title - HARUN ALI vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.

Case citation:

Click Here To Read/Download Order