Gauhati High Court
Mrinal Basumatary vs The State Of Assam on 19 October, 2023
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010235322023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./3748/2023
MRINAL BASUMATARY
S/O BHARAT BASUMATARY R/O ANAND NAGAR CHEUNI ALI P.O. JORHAT
DIST JORHAT ASSAM PI 785002
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP BY THE PP, ASSAM
2:INKAMLAK NEWMAI
BOXING COACH AND IN CHARGE SPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
TRAINING CENTRE NAHARLAGUN ARUNACHAL PRADES
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M DUTTA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI
ORDER
Date : 19.10.2023
Heard Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.R.
Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent No.1 and
Ms. A. Begum, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.
Page No.# 2/5
2. This is an application made under Section 439 Cr.P.C., seeking bail
by the petitioner, namely, Mrinal Basumatary, in connection with
Special(POCSO) Case No. 94/2023(arising out of Panigaon P.S. Case No.
25/2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 484/2023) pending before the court
Learned Special Judge(POCSO) Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, registered
under Section 10 of POCSO Act.
3. The background of the case is that the informant who is the
Weightlifting Coach, Sports Authority of India(SAI), STC, Solalgaon, Assam
lodged an FIR stating inter alia that the present petitioner who is Swimming
Coach, In-charge, Sports Authority of India(SAI), Training Centre, Solalgaon,
Assam, sexually harassed the minor girls, residential athletes of the said SAI
Training Centre, Solalgaon. Subsequently, a case was registered vide Panigaon
P.S. Case No. 25/2023 under Section 10 of POCSO Act and after completion of
investigation, charge-sheet was submitted accordingly under such provision of
law. The petitioner, after coming to know about filing of charge-sheet, showing
him as absconder, thereafter, approached this Court by filing a criminal petition
vide No. 933/2023 praying for quashing of FIR. As per order of this Court, the
criminal petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to appear
before the learned trial court. The petitioner also filed an undertaking that he
would appear before the learned trial court on each and every date. After
considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this
Court directed the petitioner to appear before the learned trial court on
04.10.2023 and to apply for regular bail and in the event of filing such
application, the learned trial court shall consider the same as per provision of
law.
4. The learned trial court fixed 20.09.2023 for appearance of the
Page No.# 3/5
petitioner but on that day, from the side of the petitioner, a petition was filed
stating that this Court has directed him to appear before the learned trial court
on 04.10.2023 and in that petition, prayer was made to condone the absence of
the petitioner for the day. Accordingly, the learned trial court was pleased to
condone the absence of the petitioner and fixed the matter on 04.10.2023. On
04.10.2023, the petitioner appeared before the learned trial court by filing a
petition seeking regular bail but the learned trial court instead of properly
appreciating the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI and Anr. reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773, rejected
the bail prayer of the petitioner by holding that the petitioner has not appeared
in response to the summons issued by the learned trial court. Thereafter, the
petitioner has filed this bail application.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has made categorical that the judgment of Santender Kumar
Antil(supra), is the law of the land and the principles laid down by it for bail to
an accused, including those not arrested at the time of filing of the charge-
sheet, must be followed by all concerned courts.
6. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the charge-sheet has already been laid and the case is fixed for production of
the accused. As per charge-sheet, there are 12 prosecution witnesses to be
examined during trial. As such, it will take time in completing the trial. Under
such circumstances, further custodial detention of the petitioner is not at all
required. To make out the defence, the release of the petitioner is highly
required in order to consult with his lawyer to defend his case properly.
7. In response, Mr. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecution for
the State has vehemently objected in granting bail to the petitioner by stating
Page No.# 4/5
that the petitioner had committed such offence of sexual abuse to the minor
children which are grievous in nature. Considering the nature of offence, prayer
of the petitioner may not be considered at this stage.
8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the parties. I have also perused the scanned copy of LCR.
9. It is true that the alleged offence against the accused/petitioner is
under Section 10 of POCSO Act which deals with aggravated sexual assault. But
it appears that the charge-sheet has already been laid and trial is about to
initiate. As the petitioner is the government employee, there is no chance of his
absconding. As the charge has not yet been framed and the trial has not yet
been commenced, it will take 2/3 months or more to complete the proceedings.
10. Under such backdrop, this Court is of the view that further custodial
detention of the accused-petitioner is not necessary.
11. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail in
connection with Special(POCSO) Case No. 94/2023(arising out of Panigaon
P.S. Case No. 25/2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 484/2023) pending
before the court of Learned Special Judge(POCSO) Lakhimpur, North
Lakhimpur, under Section 10 of POCSO Act, on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.30,000/- with two suitable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction
of learned Special Judge(POCSO) Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, Assam.
12. The direction for bail is further subject to the condition that the
petitioner:
(a) shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of learned Special
Judge(POCSO) Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, Assam without prior written
permission from him/her.
13. The learned trial court is at liberty to impose any condition(s) as it
Page No.# 5/5
deems fit and proper at the time of releasing the petitioner/accused on bail to
procure his attendance during trial.
14. The bail application stands disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
