Gauhati High Court
Niku Kalita vs The State Of Assam on 14 March, 2022
Author: Hitesh Kumar Sarma
Bench: Hitesh Kumar Sarma
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010027632022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/476/2022
NIKU KALITA
S/O LT. GIRISH KALITA
R/O VILL- BARLAH,
P.O. HALOGAON, P.S. SUALKUCHI
DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN-781103
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. K K CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA
:: O R D E R ::
14-03-2022 This is an application made under Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking pre-arrest bail by the petitioner, namely, Niku Kalita, apprehending arrest in connection Page No.# 2/3 with Hajo Police Station Case No.38/2022, registered under Sections 294/354(A)/506 of the IPC, read with Section 67(A) of the Information & Technology Act and Section 12 of the POCSO Act..
Heard Mrs. K.K. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R.R. Koushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State.
The case diary produced has been perused, including the statement of the victim, recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC.
The accused-petitioner is on interim protection and he has appeared before the investigating officer, after he was granted the interim protection and he is found to have not misused the liberty granted to him, while availing such interim protection.
That apart, the FIR, prima facie, does not disclose any offence under Section 12 of the POCSO Act. So far the other allegation, particularly in respect of circulation of the video clips of the victim, it is come out from the materials in the case diary that while the victim was in an intimate moment with her boyfriend, such moment was video recorded by themselves. The accused- petitioner had forcefully taken such video clips of the victim and transferred to his own mobile phone and thereafter circulated the same. On the basis of such allegation, the case has been registered under Section 67 of the Information & Technology Act.
On consideration of all the entire materials, as a whole, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the accused-petitioner is not essential.
Accordingly, the interim protection granted to him, vide order dated 18- 12-2022, is made absolute on the same terms and conditions.
Page No.# 3/3 The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Return the case diary.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant