Gauhati High Court
Sankar Jyoti Baruah vs The State Of Assam on 30 July, 2025
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010200692024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/2579/2024
SANKAR JYOTI BARUAH
S/O-LATE DILIP KUMAR BARUAH,
R/O 2 NO- NAOHOLIA,
P.O- NAOHOLIA, P.S- DULIAJAN, DIST- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN-786191
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP BY THE PP ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : Chandan Talukdar, MR. S K DEKA,MR. J DEKA,MR. S SARMA,A
GAUTAM,MR. T K BHUYAN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. T J MAHANTA (INFORMANT),MR P
TALUKDAR (INFORMANT),MR W R MEDHI (INFORMANT)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
ORDER
Date : --30.07.2025 Heard Mr. S. Sarma, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Gautam, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard P. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State respondent and Mr. Page No.# 2/7 T.J. Mahanta, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. W.R. Medhi, the learned counsel for the informant.
Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted a Report received from the I/O to clarify as to whether the present petitioner had appeared before the I/O after obtaining the order of interim pre-arrest bail on 23.09.2024.
2. It is submitted by Mr. Sharma, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the present petitioner was granted with interim pre-arrest bail on 23.09.2024 and since then, the case is pending for Case Diary and on 10.06.2025, considering the submission made by learned counsel for the informant, an order was passed by this Court to call for a report from the Officer In-charge, Dispur police station as to whether any police case has been registered on the basis of the G.D. Entry No. 35/2025 dated 10.05.2025 which is made under the Dispur police station and also asked for a report as to whether any enquiry has been conducted and regarding the preliminary finding on the basis of the enquiry. It was alleged by the informant side by filing an objection stating that the petitioner had misused the liberty and has threatened the victim girl on 09.05.2025 over mobile phone and for which the victim also lodged an FIR before the Deputy Commissioner of Police (East) on 10.05.2025 and on the basis of which the G.D. Entry was made. The petitioner side also filed an additional-affidavit denying that the petitioner never made any phone call to the informant on 09.05.2025 and in fact since the filing of the instant anticipatory bail petition, the petitioner never attempted to contact the informant in any manner. The complaint/FIR dated 10.05.2025 which is annexed along with the objection filed by the informant is only an attempt of the informant to abuse the process of law with malafide intention only to arrest the present petitioner. He Page No.# 3/7 further submitted that the informant failed to submit any screen shot of WhatsApp of the informant pertaining to threatening call on 09.05.2025 and also failed to furnish the 'Contact Details' of the petitioner which is saved in the informant's phone.
3. Mr. Sharma, the learned Senior Advocate further submitted that the accused/petitioner was granted with the interim bail in connection with Duliajan P.S. Case No. 89/2025 u/s 329(2)/117(2)/3(5)/351(3) of BNS and added Section 117(4)/118(2) and 109 of BNS, 2023 which has been made absolute vide order dated 12.06.2025 in connection with Bail Application No. 1699/2025. He further submitted that the petitioner never misused the condition of interim bail order dated 23.09.2024 rather he is cooperating the I/O and after obtaining the order of interim pre-arrest bail he appeared before the I/O on two occasions and extended his cooperation. Further, he submitted that the written objection filed by the respondent no. 2/informant it reveals that the petitioner has no connection with the informant since 2023, which is admitted by the informant in her written objection. However, the petitioner is still ready and willing to extend his cooperation in further investigation of this case, if he is granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Borthakur submitted in this regard that prior to the filing of the present petition seeking pre-arrest bail, the petitioner had approached the learned Court below on 06.09.2024 seeking pre- arrest bail wherein he was provided with the interim protection vide order dated 07.09.2024. But, after perusal of the Case Diary, the prayer for pre-arrest bail was rejected and the order of interim pre-arrest bail was also vacated vide order dated 21.09.2024. However, during the said period the petitioner appeared before the I/O on 09.09.2024 and accordingly his statement was also recorded.
Page No.# 4/7 But, after obtaining the order of interim pre-arrest bail from this Court on 23.09.2024, the petitioner did not appear before the I/O nor cooperated in the investigation of this case by violating the terms of the bail order. Apart from that he threatened the informant/victim while he was on interim bail and for which the victim had to lodge another FIR before the police station which is accordingly registered wherein the G.D. Entry and the FIR was accordingly registered. He further submitted that I/O has already submitted the preliminary enquiry report which was called by this Court vide order dated 10.06.2025. As per report, the Investigating Officer had already recorded the statement of the complainant/victim, other witnesses and steps have already been taken for providing details of the WhatsApp calls and in that context the requisition has already been sent to the Nodal Officer and the reply is still awaiting. Further, in the Report it is stated that the G.D. Entry which has been made after receiving the complaint, the same has been treated as additional FIR in connection with the Dispur P.S. Case No. 953/2024.
5. Mr. Borthakur further submitted that the investigation still under process in connection with the Duliajan P.S. Case No. 89/2025. Accordingly, he submitted that it is not a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present petitioner who has violated all terms & conditions of the interim pre-arrest bail order dated 23.09.2025. He further submitted that considering the materials available in the Case Diary also, the custodial interrogation of the present petitioner will be required for the interest of investigation and hence he prayed for rejection of the present petition.
6. In reply Mr. Sharma, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner never misused the order of interim bail and in pursuant to the order of interim pre-arrest bail he appeared before the I/O with Page No.# 5/7 an application intimating his release on interim bail accompanying the order which is duly received by the Officer In-charge, Dispur police station on the next date i.e. on 24.09.2024 at about 11:25 PM. Mr. Sharma further submitted that in two occasions, the petitioner appeared before the I/O after obtaining the order of interim pre-arrest bail and extended his cooperation in the investigation. Mr. Sharma further submitted that he never misused the order of bail and some false and concocted allegation has been brought against him only to harass the present petitioner and to arrest him in the present case.
7. Mr. Mahanta, the learned Senior Advocate for the informant/respondent no. 2 submitted in this regard that the petitioner had misused the condition of the interim bail order dated 23.09.2024 and threatened the informant victim through a telephonic call and for which she had lodged a complaint/FIR before the Dispur police station. Mr. Mahanta accordingly submits that there is probability of threatening, so pre-arrest bail may not be considered at this stage.
8. Mr. Sharma, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that while passing the order of rejection of pre-arrest bail by the learned Sessions Judge had observed that the investigation is at nascent stage and it is also observed that merely getting the statement recorded at police station does not mean, the petitioner is cooperating in the investigation and the statement made by the petitioner before the I/O is inadequate and it is also observed that the Court cannot enter into the question as to whether the petitioner did not have any intention of marrying the informant since inception of their relationship as this may be decided only after recording of the evidence. Mr. Sharma thus submitted that the grounds for rejection of the pre-arrest bail is not at all tenable and it cannot be said by the Court that the cooperation extended by the Page No.# 6/7 petitioner is not sufficient and one cannot bound the petitioner to make confession before the Investigating Officer in the name of extending his cooperation. However, petitioner is still ready and willing to cooperate the I/O in further investigation of this case, if he is granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail.
9. After hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and on perusal of the case record as well as Case Diary, it is seen that petitioner was granted with interim pre-arrest bail by this Court on 23.09.2024 with a direction to appear before the I/O and to cooperate him in the investigation. The Report submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and from the document submitted by Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner it appears that the petitioner appeared before the I/O in two occasions after obtaining the order of interim pre-arrest bail. However, on that context it is submitted by Mr. Borthakur that his subsequent statement is not available in the Case Diary and as per the I/O his statement was not recorded by him as it was earlier recorded while the petitioner was granted with interim pre-arrest bail by the Court of learned Sessions Judge. However, it is a fact that the petitioner appeared before the I/O in two occasions obtaining the order of interim pre- arrest bail. But, it is the allegation of the informant side that while the petitioner was on interim bail, he violated the terms and conditions of the bail order and threatened the informant/victim while he was on interim pre-arrest bail for which the victim had to lodge another FIR before the concerned police station which is accordingly registered and one G.D. Entry was made and subsequently the said FIR is considered as an additional FIR and a preliminary enquiry was also made by the I/O. During the preliminary enquiry the I/O has also recorded the statement of the complainant/victim and other witnesses and steps have Page No.# 7/7 already been taken for providing details of the WhatsApp call and requisition has already been sent. Thus, it is seen that some preliminary further investigation has already conducted by the I/O on the basis of the subsequent complaint made by the victim with the allegation of threatening by the accused while he was on interim bail. The enquiry is still at the nascent stage of investigation and the WhatsApp call from the alleged accused to the complainant, which has been sent to Nodal Officer is yet to be received and the matter is still under enquiry.
10. Thus, without going further detail of the merit on the subsequent FIR/complaint lodged by the victim this Court is of the opinion that the interim order granted to the present petitioner dated 23.09.2024 can be extended till next date of listing enabling the Investigating Officer to make further enquiry in that regard. Further, the petitioner is hereby asked to appear before the I/O within 7 (seven) days from the date of order and will also give an undertaking that he will not make any contact/threaten the victim/informant, if any attempt has been made earlier.
11. List the matter accordingly on 09.09.2025.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant