Gauhati High Court
Jagadish Ch. Das vs The State Of Assam on 5 February, 2020
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010012312020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB 223/2020
1:JAGADISH CH. DAS
S/O- SRI MANOHAR DAS, R/O- DORIC ENCLAVE, RG BARUAH ROAD, ZOO
ROAD TINIALI, GUWAHATI, P.S- GEETANAGAR, DIST- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R P HAZARIKA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
Date : 05-02-2020 Heard Mr. R.P. Hazarika, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner and Mr. T.K. Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
By this application under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), the accused-petitioner viz. Sri Jagadish Ch. Das has prayed for pre-arrest bail apprehending his arrest, in connection with Jalukbari Police Station Case No. 26/2020, registered under Sections 506/511, I.P.C. read with Section 65/66D of Information Technology Act, 2000.
The concerned case diary, as called for, has been received by the learned Additional Page No.# 2/3 Public Prosecutor for the State.
I have perused the contents of the FIR. The allegation in the FIR are, inter-alia, to the effect that the Facebook account of the informant was found hacked and bulk messages were floated to her friends, family members, etc. It is further alleged that some text messages were also received from the mobile no. 9435023268 apart from receipt of intimidation. Complaints about mental harassment, threat and defamation in social media have been alleged by the informant in the FIR without naming anyone. Apprehending arrest, the accused-petitioner has averred that he had friendly relationship with the informant and messages used to be exchanged between them. The informant had also received financial assistance from the accused-petitioner on several occasions and the demands of the informant continued to increase day by day.
It is submitted by Mr. Hazarika that the accused-petitioner is presently working as the Chief Finance Manager in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited and presently posted at Bongaigaon Refinery. As there is no chance of his abscondance, the accused-petitioner if granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail, will abide by any conditions that may be imposed.
The case has been registered under Section 65/66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The punishment provided for the offences defined under those sections are imprisonment up to 3 (three) years. Section 77B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 prescribes that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the offence punishable with imprisonment for 3 (three) years and above shall be cognizable and the offence punishable with imprisonment of 3 (three) years shall be bailable.
Upon due consideration of the nature of allegations made in the FIR; the status of the accused-petitioner; and the offences likely to be attracted if the allegations made in the FIR are found true, I am of the prima facie view that if the privilege of pre-arrest bail is extended to the accused-petitioner, the progress of investigation is not likely to be prejudicially effected, provided the accused-petitioner continues to cooperate with the investigation of the case, by joining the investigation.
Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of his arrest in connection with Jalukbari Page No.# 3/3 Police Station Case No. 26/2020, the accused-petitioner shall be released on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one local surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject to the following conditions:-
1. The accused-petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer of the case within a period of 10 (ten) days from today and shall thereafter appear before the Investigating Officer of the case as and when his presence is required for the purpose of further investigation of the case and shall cooperate with the investigation;
2. The accused-petitioner shall not hamper with the investigation or tamper with the evidence of the case; and
3. The accused-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.
The application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant