Gauhati High Court
Biju Bhattachargee @ Bijubhushan ... vs The State Of Assam on 8 October, 2020
Author: Ajit Borthakur
Bench: Ajit Borthakur
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010120312020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB 2320/2020
1:BIJU BHATTACHARGEE @ BIJUBHUSHAN BHATTACHARGEE
S/O SRI BINIT BHATTACHARGEE, R/O VILL-BHOKHAW BASTI, P.S.-HOJAI,
DIST-HOJAI, ASSAM
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B CHANDA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR
ORDER
Date : 08-10-2020 Heard Mr. B. Chanda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also Heard Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State respondent.
This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is filed for granting the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, namely Biju Bhattachargee @ Bijubhushan Bhattachargee apprehending arrest in connection with Hojai P.S. Case No. 612/2020 registered u/s 342/376/511/506 of the IPC.
The Case diary, as called for, is placed before the Court.
Page No.# 2/3 Mr. B. Chanda, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner is a priest of Barowari Durga Mandir, Hojai and an astrologer. According to Mr. Chanda, on 28.08.2020, the informant came to the temple along with her husband and mother-in-law for astrological consultation and the petitioner prescribed a stone worth Rs.8,000/-. Thereafter, they left, but on the following day, that is, on 29.08.2020, the informant called him over phone and requested him to take back the stone, but as he refused to take back the stone and return the money, the instant F.I.R. was filed on 30.08.2020, making false accusation.
Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, submits that the injury report shows that the victim sustained simple injury and the case diary reveals abundance of incriminating material against the petitioner.
The allegation against the petitioner, who is a priest in a temple, is that he confined the informant in a room and attempted to rape her when she visited the temple along with her husband and mother-in-law.
On close scrutiny of the case diary, it appears that the informant lady, aged about 19 years, accompanied by her husband and mother-in-law went to a temple, where the petitioner is a priest for astrological consultation. There is no reliable indication on evidence to show that the petitioner confined her in a room and after laying her on a bed, attempted to rape her. She sustained simple hurt injury in the incident. On consideration of the pros and cons of the evidence so far collected by the investigating officer, however, this Court finds that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary during the current Covid- 19 pandemic.
Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the petitioner, named above, shall be released on pre-arrest bail, in connection with the above noted case on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/-/- (Twenty Five Thousand) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject, of course, to the following conditions:
(i) That the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 7 days;
(ii) That the petitioner shall not hamper or tamper with the investigation in any manner; and
(iii) That the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat Page No.# 3/3 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.
(iv) That the petitioner shall refrain from committing any similar offences in future of which he is accused or suspected of commission.
Return the case diary.
This disposes off the anticipatory bail application.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant