Amir Hussain v. The State of Assam and Anr

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010168492024 ooooooo 2024:GAU-AS:12195 ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oAB/2199/2024o AMIRoHUSSAIN S/O-oHABIJoUDDINo VILL-oSANTIPURoLELAIBORI P.S.oLAHARIGHATo DIST.oMORIGAON,oASSAMo VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDoANR.o REPoBYoTHEoPP,oASSAM o 2:RUKIAoKHATUN W/OoOSMANoALIo R/OoVILL-oNAGABANDAo(NIGAM) P.S.oLAHARIGHAT P.O.oNAGABANDA DIST.oMORIGAON ASSAM PIN-78210o AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oMR.oJoAHMED,oMSoAoHUSSAIN,RoBEGUM,HoGoDAISYo AdvocateoforotheoRespondento:oPP,oASSAM,oMS.oKoPHUKANo(LEGALoAIDoCOUNSELoFORoR-2)oo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo BEFORE HONOURABLEoMRS.oJUSTICEoSUSMITAoPHUKANoKHAUND ORDERo

03.12.2024 o Page No.# 2/4

¶1Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner Amir Hussain.

¶2The petitioner has filed this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with prayer for pre-arrest bail as he is apprehending arrest in connection with POCSO Case No. 51/2024 arising out of Laharighat P.S. Case No. 05/2024 under Sections 376D/506 of the IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

¶3Heard Mr. K. K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent State and Ms. K. Phukan, Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent no.

2.

¶4I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection.

¶5The FIR unfolds that the co-accused including the petitioner named in the FIR took the victim 'X' to a hotel at Morigaon, and maintained physical relationship with her. The victim was only 16 years of age at that time. It was later learnt that the victim was impregnated. She did not inform her parents about the incident as she was terrified. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that Charge-sheet has been laid against the petitioner. The petitioner is willing to cooperate with the trial. A false case has been brought up against the petitioner.

¶6Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned Legal Aid Counsel have raised serious objection against the bail petition stating that this is a heinous offence and the petitioner is not entitled to pre-arrest bail. There are incriminating materials in the case diary against the petitioner and this is the reason why Charge-sheet has been laid against the petitioner.

¶7It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that a false and concocted case has been brought up against the petitioner. The co-accused Siddique Ali @ Page No.# 3/4 Md Abu Bakkar Siddique has already been granted bail in connection with this case. The prime accused is Taijul Haque and not the present petitioner. The petitioner is highly prejudiced and he does not deserve to be forwarded to custody as a false case has been foisted against him.

¶8I have scrutinized the entire case diary and the case record. The merits of this case are not brought to the fore as this case is ready for trial. I have considered the submission that the petitioner is willing to cooperate with the trial.

¶9It appears that pre-arrest bail may be granted to the petitioner.

¶10Considering all aspects, petition is allowed. Meanwhile, and in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with a suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Court/arresting authority under the conditions that:

(i) The petitioner shall cooperate with the trial,

(ii) The petitioner shall not exercise threats to the victim or try to influence the witnesses, and

(iii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission till completion of trial.

¶11On breach of any of the bail conditions, the bail order shall stand automatically cancelled.

¶12In terms of the above observation, anticipatory application stands disposed of. Page No.# 4/4 JUDGE Comparing Assistant