Shahjahan Ali and Anr v. The State of Assam and Anr

PageoNo.#o1/3 GAHC010042442024 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oAB/559/2024o SHAHJAHANoALIoANDoANRo S/O-oMUSLIMoUDDIN,oVILL-oPURAGAON,oP.S.oSORBHOG,oDIST.-oBARPETA,o ASSAM 2:oAHAMADoALI oS/O-oABDUSoSAMAD oVILL.-oPURAGAON oP.S.oSORBHOG oDIST.-oBARPETAoASSAo VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDoANRo REPRESENTEDoBYoP.P.,oASSAM 2:ABDULoKADER oS/O-oABDULoKADDUS oVILL-oPURAGAON oP.S.oSORBHOG oDIST.-oBARPETA oASSAo AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oMRoHoRoAoCHOUDHURYo AdvocateoforotheoRespondento:oPP,oASSAMoo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Page No.# 2/3 :: BEFORE :: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R

09.04.2024

Heard the learned counsel Mr. I.A. Hazarika appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. N. Das, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor representing the State of Assam.

¶2This is an application under Section 438 of the CrPC in respect of Gobardhana P.S. case No.15/2024 under Sections 376(3)/34 of the Indian Penal Code R/W Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012.

¶3On the day of occurrence, Samiya Khatun was travelling in an auto rickshaw along with her two granddaughters, namely-Manjula Khatun and Mausum Ahmed. The auto rickshaw was driven by the petitioner Ahamad Ali and the said auto rickshaw was shared by another petitioner Shahjahan Ali. It was evening at that time. The auto rickshaw was stopped at the place called Tilabori. The petitioner Shahjahan Ali gagged the mouth of the 11 year old Manjula Khatun and forcibly dragged her to a nearby jungle. On the other hand, the petitioner Ahamad Ali had also gagged the mouth of Samiya Khatun. Inside the jungle, Shahjahan tried to disrobe Manjula Khatun. When she raised alarm, both the petitioners fled.

¶4The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that on an earlier occasion, an FIR was lodged against the niece of the informant alleging similar occurrence.

¶5I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel of both sides.

¶6In this case, the statement of the 11 year old girl Manjula Khatun and Samiya Khatun were recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, which clearly implicate the present two petitioners with the alleged offence.

¶7Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that both the petitioners, namely-Page No.# 3/3 Shahjahan Ali and Ahamad Ali do not deserve to be based out with the provision of law as laid down under Section 438 of the CrPC. Their pre-arrest bail application is rejected. The application for bail is disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant