The judgment reaffirms existing precedent by disposing of an interlocutory application in line with the outcome of the main connected criminal appeal, with binding value for similar procedural scenarios in future cases.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Crl.A./114/2024 of MD. NISANUL ISLAM BARBHUIYA @ LISANUL BARBHUIYA Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. |
| CNR | GAHC010083742024 |
| Date of Registration | 29-04-2024 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Of |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND |
| Court | Gauhati High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding for subordinate courts within jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure |
| Ratio Decidendi | Where an interlocutory application (I.A.) is directly connected to the outcome of the main criminal appeal, the court may dispose of the I.A. in terms of the main appeal’s decision—without separate reasons—if the appellate verdict fully covers the applicant’s prayer or status. This procedural step ensures expeditious and consistent judicial administration. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The court disposed of the interlocutory application by acquitting the appellant in the main connected criminal appeal (Crl.A./114/2024), applying that outcome to the interlocutory application. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of Gauhati High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts (in similar procedural contexts) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that interlocutory applications (I.A.s) will be disposed of in conformity with the outcome of the main proceeding when both are directly interlinked.
- When the main appeal results in acquittal, connected I.A.s are rendered infructuous and can be disposed of without independent examination.
- Lawyers should reference this case to expedite disposal of dependent applications when the principal matter is conclusively decided.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court acknowledged that the fate of the interlocutory application (I.A.) is inseparable from the main criminal appeal (Crl.A. 114/2024).
- Upon acquittal of the appellant in the main appeal, it followed logical procedural consistency in disposing of the I.A. accordingly, without requiring further independent reasons.
- This approach aligns with established procedural efficiency—when the substance of a secondary application is covered by the main judgment, a separate detailed order is unnecessary.
Factual Background
- The appellant filed Crl.A./114/2024 before the Gauhati High Court.
- The appellant was acquitted in the main criminal appeal.
- There was a connected interlocutory application (I.A.(Crl.)/391/2024).
- The court disposed of the I.A. in terms of the main appeal’s decision, indicating that the acquittal conclusively resolved the need for further relief in the I.A.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment involves the procedure for disposal of interlocutory applications in criminal appeals.
- The court applied standard procedural practice—when the principal criminal appeal is disposed of and covers the issues in the interlocutory application, the latter may be disposed of on the same terms.
- No specific statutory interpretation or constitutional provision is analyzed in the available judgment text.
Procedural Innovations
- The order exemplifies the practice of disposing of interlocutory applications in accordance with the outcome of the main appeal, avoiding unnecessary multiplicity of orders or delays.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment follows established procedural law on the disposal of applications connected to substantive appeals.