Gauhati High Court
Sanidul Islam vs The State Of Assam on 31 January, 2020
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010004022020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB 78/2020
1:SANIDUL ISLAM
S/O ABDUS SALAM, VILL-NEPALIKHUTI, P.S.-MORNOI, DIST-GOALPARA,
ASSAM
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N UDDIN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
Date : 31-01-2020 Heard Mr. N. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
By this application under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), the petitioner viz. Sri Sanidul Islam has prayed for pre-arrest bail apprehending his arrest, in connection with Jogighopa Police Station Case No. 436/2019, registered under Section 418, I.P.C. read with Section 67A of Information Technology Act.
The informant who is the uncle of the alleged victim, has, inter-alia, alleged that the Page No.# 2/3 accused-petitioner had circulated some obscene video of his niece in social media and the same were also sent to his personal mobile. Mention has been made about some relationship between his niece and the accused-petitioner and their subsequent breakup. It is also mentioned that the victim tried to commit suicide on many occasions.
In the case diary, the statement of the alleged victim recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. is available wherein she did not make any mention about attempts of committing suicide. In the FIR, the informant had stated that the obscene videos were also sent to his personal mobile and to that effect, he has submitted a C.D. to that effect. There is no note of the Investigating Officer as regards the contents of the said C.D. There is no other materials in the case diary and/or observation as to what the sexually explicit act or conduct transmitted or published in the electronic form by the accused-petitioner.
Upon perusal of the materials collected during the course of investigation carried so far, as available in the case diary, I find that the materials do not prima facie indicate about the factum of circulation or transmission of any material containing any sexually explicit act or conduct at the instance of the accused-petitioner.
Upon due consideration of the aforesaid fact situation and perusal of the materials collected during the course of investigation so far, I am of the prima facie view that the custodial interrogation of the accused-petitioner for the purpose of investigation is found not necessary, provided he extends his cooperation in the investigation of the case.
Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of his arrest in connection with Jogighopa Police Station Case No. 436/2019, the petitioner shall be enlarged 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 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 petitioner shall not hamper with the investigation or tamper with the evidence of Page No.# 3/3 the case; and
3. 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.
The application stands disposed of in the afore-mentioned terms.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant