Gauhati High Court
Chayed Khan vs The State Of Assam on 18 December, 2019
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010292632019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB 3144/2019
1:CHAYED KHAN
S/O LT. AZIZ KHAN
R/O VILL. ACHALPARA
P.O. BHITORDUAR
P.S. CHHAYGAON
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE PP
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B CHOWDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP
ASSAM
Linked Case : AB 4255/2019
1:JEHERUL HAQUE @ JEHERUL ISLAM
S/O AZIMUDDIN, R/O VILL-ACHALPARA, P.O.-BHITORDUAR, P.S.-
CHHAYGAON, DIST-KAMRUP, ASSAM
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Page No.# 2/3
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR N AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
Date : 18-12-2019 Heard Mr. B. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Konwar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
By this application under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), the petitioner viz. Chayed Khan has prayed for pre-arrest bail apprehending his arrest, in connection with Chhaygaon Police Station Case No. 529/2019, registered under Section 143/341/342/354A/506/354/294/427/ 323/406/420, Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.).
This is a second bail application on behalf of the petitioner, after rejection of his earlier bail application by an order dated 29.08.2019 passed in AB No. 2545/2019 by this Court after perusal of the materials available in the case diary.
The concerned case diary, as called for, has been produced. The allegations in the FIR lodged on 08.06.2019 by one Arup D. Rabha as the informant, are that on 07.06.2019, as per the invitation pursuant to an oral agreement with one Kuddus Ali, the informant with a cultural group which also consisted of female members, had gone to perform programme at Samaria area under Boko Police Station at an agreed amount of Rs. 37,000/-. On arrival of the cultural group at Samaria, they could not see any arrangement of Bihu programme and on being persuaded by said Kuddus Ali, they had gone to Achalpara area where they were taken forcefully inside a barricaded area fenced by CIC tent sheets. Inside the said barricaded area, about 700/800 persons were present. When the group started performing on the stage, the persons present there created a chaotic situation and the members of the Committee who arranged the programme, used criminal force and presurrised the female members of the group to dance in naked conditions. They also threatened along with the persons present there, to kill the members of the cultural group Page No.# 3/3 unless they perform as per their demands. When the group refused to perform as per their demands, they harassed the members of the group and also outraged the modesty of the female members by touching them forcefully.
The case diary so produced, contains the statements of the informant and other witnesses. During the course of investigation, it is found that some of the victims are minors. The case diary reveals that the statements of few minor female victims have been recorded under Section 164, CrPC wherein they corroborated about the occurrence of the event. About 13 nos. of persons were arrested in connection with the incident.
The case diary contains sufficient incriminating materials regarding involvement of the present petitioner, also named in the FIR, in the said incident. The present petitioner, Chayed Khan was instrumental in arranging the said programme and being one of the main persons of the Committee who arranged the programme collecting huge money from the persons assembled there.
In view of the aforesaid facts that have emerged from the materials available in the case diary, I do not find this to be a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail under Section 438, CrPC to the present petitioner. Accordingly, this application stands rejected.
Return the case diary.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant