Gauhati High Court
Md. Hamidul Islam vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 1 October, 2024
Author: Malasri Nandi
Bench: Malasri Nandi
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010172992024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2558/2024
MD. HAMIDUL ISLAM
S/O MD. KASEM ALI, R/O VILL- GAROKHUTA, P.O.-CHOIBARI BAGAN, P.S.
AND DIST- KOKRAJHAR (ASSAM)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
2:GUL MANJAN ALI
S/O JEL HOQUE
VILL- SILKATARI PT-I
P.O.-BILASHPUR
P.S. AND DIST-KOKRAJHA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K M HASSAN, MS. S NAZNEEN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR D K BHATTACHARYYA, AMICUS CURIAE
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI
ORDER
Date : 01.10.2024
Heard Mr. K.M. Hassan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.
Page No.# 2/3
K.K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent
No.1 and Mr. D.K. Bhattacharyya, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent
No. 2.
2. By this application filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraskha Sanhita, 2023, the accused petitioner namely, Md. Hamidul islam,
has prayed for bail in connection with Basugaon P.S. Case No. 21/24 under
Section 420/354/376/325/506/294/34 IPC r/w Section 4 of POCSO Act
(corresponding to Kokrajhar P.S. Case No. 107/2024) under Section
420/354/376/325/506/294/34 IPC r/w Section 4 of POCSO Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that whatever stated
by the informant in the FIR is false and concocted. The petitioner and the
victim girl had a love relationship and she voluntarily left her house with an
intention to stay with the petitioner. It is also submitted that when the learned
trial court took cognizance of the complaint petition filed by the informant
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and forwarded the said petition to the Officer-in-
Charge, Kokrajhar police station who registered a case and has failed to
comply with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Priyanak
Srivastava & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287.
Considering the background of the case, the petitioner may be enlarged on
bail.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
has produced the case diary along with the statement of the victim girl
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is submitted by the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor that the victim is a minor girl and she has implicated the
petitioner. Hence, he has opposed in granting bail to the petitioner.
Page No.# 3/3
5. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No.2
has also submitted that the petitioner had committed such nuisance to the
victim girl. He has strongly opposed in granting bail to the petitioner.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the parties. I have also perused the case diary.
7. It appears from the statement of the victim girl recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. that on several occasions, the victim had been sexually
abused by the petitioner. Admittedly, the victim is a minor girl as such question
of consent does not arise. Regarding non-complaince of the provision of
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the petitioner can raise the issue during trial, and which
cannot be taken into consideration at the stage of bail.
8. Considering the materials available in the case diary as well as the
statement of the victim girl, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner at this stage. Therefore, prayer for the bail is rejected.
9. The bail application stands disposed of accordingly.
10. Return the case diary.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
