Gauhati High Court
Jubel Khan vs The State Of Assam on 6 January, 2025
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010142422024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/1841/2024
JUBEL KHAN
S/O- SIDDIK ALI,
R/O- VILLAGE-TULAMATI,
P.S- BAIHATA CHARIALI,
DIST-KAMRUP RURAL, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP BY THE PP ASSAM
2:SAIFUL ALI
S/O- UNISH ALI
R/O- VILLAGE- TULAMATI
P.S-BAIHATACHARIALI
DIST- KAMRUP (R)
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : TINKU SOM, MR. S RANA,MR. S MUNIR,MS S ISLAM,MR H
DAS,MS. U HAZARIKA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS P KAKATI(R-2),MR A K AHMED (R-2),MS P
DAS, Amicus Curiae(R-2)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
Page No.# 2/4
ORDER
Date : 06-01-2025 Heard Mr. S. Munir, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State respondent; Ms. P. Das, the learned Amicus Curiae for respondent no. 2 and Mr. A.K. Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 as engaged by the Government.
2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner in connection with Baihata Chariali P.S. Case No. 177/2024 u/s 64(1) B.N.S R/W Section 4 POCSO Act.
3. Case Diary is received.
4. One affidavit is also filed by the respondent no. 2/the informant.
5. Mr. Munir, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted in this regard that the present petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. However, it is accepted that there is a love relationship between the accused and the victim. But, after filing of the FIR, the matter has already been settled between the parties and the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation of the case, if he is granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail.
6. Mr. Baruah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that there are sufficient incriminating materials in the Case Diary including the statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.PC and the medical evidence. It is submitted that it is an admitted fact that at the time of incident the girl was 17 Page No.# 3/4 years old and accordingly the case was registered under the POCO Act. He also submitted that there is no scope for the compounding of the offence in a case registered under the POCSO. He raised objection in granting the privilege of pre- arrest bail to the petitioner.
7. Ms. P. Das, the learned Amicus Curiae also submitted in this regard that from the plain reading of the FIR itself it is seen that Section 4 of the POCSO is attracted which cannot be compounded by the parties. She accordingly submitted that it is not at all a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
8. Mr. Ahmed, the engaged counsel for the respondent no. 2 submitted that soon after lodging of the FIR, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and in this context the informant has submitted affidavit and one mutual agreement was also executed wherein it is specifically stated that the case was filed only due to misunderstanding. Accordingly, Mr. Ahmed submitted that as per instruction of his client, the informant has no objection if privilege of pre- arrest bail is granted to the accused/petitioner.
9. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, perused the case records and Case Diary. It is admitted that both the accused and the victim has love relationship and there are some incrimination against the accused in the Case Diary. The Medical Report also shows some sign of forceable intercourse. However, considering the submissions made by learned engaged counsel for the respondents and the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner, I find that custodial interrogation may not be necessary for the interest of investigation of the case.
10. In view of above, I find it a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail Page No.# 4/4 to the accused/petitioner.
11. Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the accused/petitioner, namely, Jubel Khan, in connection with with Baihata Chariali P.S. Case No. 177/2024 u/s 64(1) B.N.S R/W Section 4 POCSO Act, he shall be enlarged on pre-arrest bail on his executing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject to the following conditions:
(i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer within 10(ten) days.
(ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and
(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate, without prior permission.
12. The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant