Suruj Miyan @ Suruj Ali v. The State of Assam

ORDER

19.06.2023 Heard Mr S Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

¶2By this application filed under Section 439 CrPC, the petitioner, Suruj Miyan @ Suruj Ali, who was arrested on 12.01.2023, has prayed for releasing him on bail, in connection with Special (POCSO) Case No. 71 of 2023 (arising out of Jakhalabandha Page No.# 2/3 PS Case No. 08/2023) under Section 376 AB IPC, read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

¶3It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that accused petitioner was arrested on 12.01.2023 and since then, he has been languishing in jail hazot. Charge sheet has been submitted after the mandatory period of detention, i.e., 90 days. So, under such circumstances, bail may be granted to the petitioner. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed his reliance on the following case-law:- 2022 (5) GLT 405; (Samsun Noor @ Samsul Noor vs. State of Assam)

¶4On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, opposing the bail prayer of the petitioner, has submitted that the victim is a minor girl and there is an eye-witness to the incident, i.e., the brother of the victim, but they were not examined in the case. It is also submitted that as per the case record, the charge sheet was submitted on

28.02.2023, i.e., within the mandatory period of detention. So, the bail prayer of the petitioner may be rejected.

¶6I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties. I have also perused the Case Diary, along with the status report submitted by the Court of learned Additional District Judge No. 1 –cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Nagaon, Assam, in connection with Special (POCSO) Case No. 71/2023.

¶7It appears that two witnesses were examined, i.e., PW-1 and PW-2, who are the parents of the victim girl and their statements were also recorded. Both PW-1 and PW-2 were not the eye-witnesses to the incident, but according to them, the brother of the victim, Sahirul Ali accompanied the victim girl and as he was present at the time of incident, he had seen the incident, but he was not examined. However, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 CrPC.

¶8Perused the statement of the victim girl, recorded under Section 164 CrPC, wherein she has alleged that the accused petitioner had committed sexual intercourse upon her. Page No.# 3/3 As per the statement of the victim as well as the parents of the victim, the victim's brother, was present at the time of the alleged occurrence.

¶7Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the status report and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the bail prayer of the petitioner is hereby rejected at this stage.

¶9With the aforesaid observations, this Bail Application stands disposed of.

¶10Send back the Case Diary.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010107632023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1788/2023 SURUJ MIYAN @ SURUJ ALI S/O LT. SOYED ALI, R/O VILL-NAJAN (CHAPORI), P.S.-JAKHALABANDHA, DIST-NAGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : S AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI