Gauhati High Court
Nur Mahammad Sk. @ Nural Hoque vs The State Of Assam on 13 July, 2020
Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010061792020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB 940/2020
1:NUR MAHAMMAD SK. @ NURAL HOQUE
S/O- LT. BELLAL SK., VILL. CHAR AIRANJONGLA PT-II (CHAR BHASANI),
P.S. DHUBRI, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM.
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY PP, ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M KHAN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
ORDER
Date : 13-07-2020 Heard the learned counsel Mr. M. Khan appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam.
The petitioner Mr. Nur Mahammad Sk. @ Nural Hoque (hereinafter referred as the petitioner only) had prayed for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in the matter of Dhubri P.S. Case No. 2038/2019 under Sections 438 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
On 21.11.2019 a 28 years old married woman had lodged an FIR before police alleging that on 13.11.2019 at 10 PM, while her husband was absent in the house, the Page No.# 2/2 petitioner had entered into the house and forcibly committed rape upon her. It is further alleged that the petitioner had threatened her by showing a sharp weapon.
The victim gave a statement under Section 164 of the Cr.PC supporting the aforesaid facts. The victim stated before the Magistrate that she tried to raise alarm when the petitioner pounced upon her, but she could not do so because the petitioner had gagged her mouth with a gamocha.
The Case Diary reveals that all the witnesses examined by police are hearsay witnesses. They came to know about the occurrence on being informed by the victim woman.
After going through the materials available in the Case Diary, I have no doubt that the veracity of the prosecution case against the petitioner is doubtful. I would hold that the prosecution story seems to stand at the edge of reasoning.
For the aforesaid reasons I have decided to agree with the petitioner that he does not deserve to be detained in custody. Therefore, it is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioner Nur Mahammad Sk. @ Nural Hoque shall be released on bail of Rs. 10,000/- with surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority.
The pre-arrest bail application is disposed of.
The Case Diary may be returned.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant