VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Gauhati High Court 2023 › High Court of Gauhati

Joynal Abedin @ Lal Hosen and 2 Ors v. The State of Assam

Disposed Of
Court
High Court of Gauhati
Decided
9 May 2023
Bench
Susmita Phukan Khaundauthor
Case no.
AB 1092/2023

Judgment

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010063792023 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oAB/1092/2023o JOYNALoABEDINo@oLALoHOSENoANDo2oORSo S/O-oLATEoJOMIRoUDDIN,oVILL-oADABARIoPART-II,oP.S.oDHUBRI,oDIST.-o DHUBRI,oASSAM,oPIN-o783324 2:oAYNALoHOQUE oS/O-oLATEoJOMIRoUDDIN oVILL-oADABARIoPART-II oP.S.oDHUBRI oDIST.-oDHUBRI oASSAM oPIN-o783324 3:oROMISHoUDDINoSK.o@oDHONI oS/O-oLATEoMANIRoUDDINoSK. oVILL-oBIDYAPARA oWARDoNO.o8 oP.S.oDHUBRI oDIST.-oDHUBRI oASSAM oPIN-o78332o VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMo REP.oBYoTHEoP.P.,oASSAM AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oMRoRoISLAMo AdvocateoforotheoRespondento:oPP,oASSAMoo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Page No.# 2/4 B E F O R E HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

09.05.2023

¶1Heard Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State respondent.

¶2The petitioners, namely, Joynal Abedin, Aynal Hoque, Romish Uddin Sk, have filed this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C with prayer for pre-arrest bail as they are apprehending arrest in connection with Dhubri P.S. Case No. 977/2019, under Sections 376(D)/395 IPC. Earlier their bail petition under Section 438 was rejected by this Court vide order dated

09.02.2023 in connection with A.B. No. 86/2022 as sufficient materials found in the case diary against the petitioner. The statement of the victim under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C also incriminates the petitioner.

¶3I have considered the submissions at the Bar and I have also perused the case diary. This subsequent petition with prayer for anticipatory bail was filed on a new ground. It is submitted that the accused Bellal Hoque named in the Fir has passed away on 11.02.2016. The death certificate is appended as Annexure-5. It is clear from the allegation in the FIR that the Bellal Haque was also one of the accused who committed gang rape on the victim. It is submitted that as a dead person has been named in the FIR, it clearly reveals that the FIR is false and fabricated. The petitioner no. 1 on the other hand has filed an FIR dated

04.06.2019 against the brother of the victim. The petitioner's sister was married to the victim's brother and she was subjected to cruelty and when the petitioner No. 1 Joynal Abedin Page No.# 3/4 learnt that his sister was subjected to cruelty, he lodged the FIR and his sister was forwarded for medical treatment and the discharge certificate marked as Annexure-3 reveals that the petitioner no. 1's sister was attended by the petitioner no. 1 during her stay in the Dhubri Civil Hospital from 05.06.2019 to 09.06.2019. The FIR was lodged against the brother of the victim of the instant case on 04.06.2019 and the present FIR has been fabricated and lodged on the following date i.e. on 05.06.2019. It is submitted that the accused Lal Hosen and Aynal Hoque are the brothers and the accused Dhoni and Abdul Hai are cousins and it is not possible that gang rape will be committed by brothers and cousins together and it is also not believable that a deceased was named as accused in the FIR.

¶4After considering the submissions at the Bar and considering all aspects, petition is allowed.

¶5In the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be enlarged on bail of Rs. 50,000/- each with a suitable surety each of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, under conditions that,

(i) the petitioners will appear before the I/O within 10(ten) days and co-operate with the investigation.

(ii) the petitioners will not exercise threats to the victim as well as the witnesses.

(iii) the petitioners will not hamper with the investigation, or tamper with the evidence of the case;

(iv) the petitioners will 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. Page No.# 4/4

Send back the case diary.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Source: High Court of Gauhati, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.