Gauhati High Court
Mantu Dey vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 2 December, 2022
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010155772022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/423/2022
MANTU DEY
S/O- LATE JAGANNATH DEY, VILL.- ARAIANI PT-1, P.S. BAGRIBARI, DIST.
KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 783370.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
2:SMTI. DIPA SUTRADHAR
W/O- JAYDEB CH. SUTRADHAR
R/O- ARAIANI
PT-1
P.S. BAGRIBARI
DIST. KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 783370
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MAHMUD
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
ORDER
Date : 02-12-2022
Suman Shyam, J
Page No.# 2/4
Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. D. Das,
learned Addl. P.P. Assam appearing on behalf of the State/ respondent No. 1. Ms. B.D.
Sarma, learned legal aid counsel has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2/ prosecutrix
in this case.
The applicant was convicted under Section 376 IPC by the judgment dated 20-07-
2022 passed by the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar in connection with Sessions
Case No. T-2/109/2019 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years
and also to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation. Since then, the applicant is in
jail.
By filing this I.A., a prayer has been made to suspend his sentence and also to
release of the applicant on bail pending disposal of the pending appeal.
By referring to the materials available on record, Mr. Mahmud submits that this is a
clear case of consenting adults, inasmuch as the victim/ prosecutrix has admitted before
the Medical Officer as well as the Investigating Officer about her illicit physical relationship
with the appellant. Mr. Mahmud further submits that there was un-explained delay in
lodging the FIR and the medical evidence also does not support the prosecution case. As
such, this is a case of acquittal. It is also the submission of Mr. Mahmud that the wife of
the applicant is hospitalized for delivery of her child and due to the pending proceedings,
no members of the family of his wife or the neighbours, are coming forward with help. He
submits that in this critical situation, if the applicant is not allowed to stand by his wife,
then the same would lead to miscarriage of justice. On such count, the applicant's counsel
Page No.# 3/4
has prayed for releasing his client on bail.
Opposing the prayer, Mr. Das has argued that this is a clear case of rape committed
by the applicant and the learned Sessions Court has recorded categorical finding of facts
based on materials available on record so as to convict the applicant. As such, the present
is not a fit case for grant of bail. Similar is the stand of Ms. Sarma, learned legal aid
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2.
In reply, Mr. Mahmud has argued that during hearing of the appeal, he would
produce more materials including case laws, to show that the conviction is not sustainable
in the eye of law.
After taking note of the materials placed on record as well as the facts and
circumstances of the case in its entirety, we are of the view that this matter would call for
further consideration by this Court. However, at the same time we are also conscious of
the fact that the wife of the applicant is stated to be in hospital in connection with her
pregnancy and we are informed that today, i.e. 02-12-2022 is the expected date of
delivery. We have also taken note of the submission of Mr. Mahmud that no family
members or members of the society are coming forward to help the wife of the applicant.
Under the circumstances, if the applicant is also not permitted to remain present with his
wife, then the same, in our opinion, would not only cause untold sufferings to his wife but
may even endanger the life of the new born. Therefore, taking note of the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the case and for ends of justice, we deem it appropriate to grant
limited period of bail to the applicant purely on medical grounds of his wife.
Page No.# 4/4
We, accordingly, direct that the applicant, viz. Mantu Dey be allowed to go on bail
for a period of 03 weeks on furnishing bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one local surety of like
amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
The learned trail court will be at liberty to impose any other condition(s) for
releasing the applicant on bail for a period of 03 weeks, if so desired.
The applicant would surrender before the jail authority on completion of 03 weeks
from the date of his release on bail on the strength of this order.
Let this I.A. be listed again after 04 weeks for necessary order(s).
JUDGE JUDGE
GS
Comparing Assistant
