Injamamul Hoque @ Injamul Hoque v. The State of Assam

ORDER

21.06.2024 Heard Mr H R A Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr R A Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶2This application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has Page No.# 2/3 been filed by the petitioner, namely, Injamamul Hoque @ Injamul Hoque, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 324/2023 registered under Sections 120(B)/306/376/417 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶3The gist of accusation in this case is that on 31.10.2023, one Helal Uddin had lodged a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj, inter-alia, alleging that his daughter who was married to one Faruk Ahmed came in contact with the present petitioner and they entered into physical relationship against her will, as a result of which daughter of the first informant got pregnant and thereafter, the petitioner refused to marry her in spite of request to marry her by the present petitioner. However, present petitioner refused to do so and on 10.10.2023 the daughter of the informant committed suicide by hanging.

¶4The aforesaid complaint has been forwarded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj to the Officer-in-Charge of Patharkandi Police Station and accordingly, an FIR has been registered.

¶5It is alleged in the FIR that daughter of the first informant committed suicide due to the misdeed of the present petitioner.

¶6Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations levelled in the FIR, i.e, the complaint, are not true.

¶7It is also submitted that though the complaint has been forwarded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj to the Officer-in-Charge of Patharkandi Police Page No.# 3/3 Station, however, the said complaint has not been supported by any affidavit.

¶8It is also submitted that the daughter of the first informant was already a married woman, therefore, the question of marrying the said lady does not appear.

¶9Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that though the alleged incident had occurred on 10.10.2023, the complaint was lodged by the complainant after a lapse of about 20 days.

¶10I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection.

¶11The petitioner was granted interim bail vide order dated 12.01.2024. The petitioner has appeared before the IO and his statement has been recorded. The petitioner has not violated any bail conditions.

¶12It appears that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be required.

¶13The petitioner has pledged to cooperate with the remaining part of investigation and to abide by any stringent bail conditions, if imposed upon him.

¶14In view of my foregoing discussions, interim pre-arrest bail order dated

12.01.2024, is hereby made absolute.

¶15Anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.

¶16Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010008312024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/133/2024 INJAMAMUL HOQUE @ INJAMUL HOQUE S/O ABUL KHAYER R/O VILL- BARUAIL P.S.PATHARKANDI, DIST. KARIMGANJ, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND