Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Gauhati High Court

Dr. Jillaur Rahman Ahmed vs The State Of Assam on 2 August, 2022

Author: Ajit Borthakur

Bench: Ajit Borthakur

                                                                                      Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010142272022




                               THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                      Case No. : AB/2021/2022

             DR. JILLAUR RAHMAN AHMED
             SON OF LATE MOZAFFAR HUSSAIN SARDER
             R/O LAKHIPUR NATUN BAZAR
             WARD NO. 7, P.O. AND P.S. LAKHIPUR
             DIST. GOALPARA, PIN NO. 783129, ASSAM



             VERSUS

             THE STATE OF ASSAM
             REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM



Advocate for the Petitioner    : MR H R A CHOUDHURY

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM




                                    BEFORE
                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR

                                              ORDER

Date : 02.08.2022 Heard Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. RJ Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No.1.

By this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, namely, Dr. Jillaur Rahman Ahmed has prayed for pre-arrest bail apprehending arrest in connection with Lakhipur PS Case No. 237/2022 Page No.# 2/3 under Section 376/312 of the IPC r/w Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The case diary is placed before the Court.

Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner, who is aged about 66 years and a doctor by profession, has a good reputation in the society, but he has been roped into a false and fabricated case. Mr. Choudhury emphatically submits that the petitioner was not at all involved in the termination of pregnancy of the minor girl, who is stated to be 16 to 17 years. According to Mr. Choudhury, the victim along with 4 (four) persons among whom were her parents as introduced, visited his private chamber with request for terminating her pregnancy, but as he refused to do so they left. The petitioner being innocent and a cardiac patient fitted with pace maker, Mr. Choudhury submits, he may be granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail subject to any condition.

Opposing the pre-arrest bail application, Mr. RJ Baruah learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that the case diary reveals prima facie incriminating material against the petitioner doctor under the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.

The FIR dated 07.07.2022 reveals the allegation that about 2 ½ months ago, the daughter of the informant was forcibly took away by the FIR named accused No.1 from her house and by gagging her mouth, raped her and as a result she got pregnant which was thereafter terminated in the hospital by the accused No. 2.

The medical report shows that the victim is aged 18 to 19 years without any sign of sexual intercourse or injury on her person.

As per Birth Certificate her date of birth is 02.03.2006.

The victim girl in her statements under Section 161 and 164 CrPC has not implicated the present petitioner with his name, but stated that termination of her pregnancy was done in a pharmacy. However, some other statements reveal prima facie incriminating material against the petitioner.

On scrutiny of the evidence so far collected by the investigating officer and as the investigation has substantially progressed, this Court is of the opinion that custodial interrogation for the petitioner may not be required in the interest of ongoing investigation.

Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, namely, Dr. Jillaur Rahman Ahmed, he shall be released on pre-arrest bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- ( Fifty Thousand ) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject, of course, to the following conditions:

Page No.# 3/3
(i) That the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 7 days, failing which, on the 8th day, the anticipatory bail order shall automatically expire;
(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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and
(iii) That the petitioner shall refrain from committing any such offence of which he is accused of commission.

Return the case diary.

The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant