Ezazul Hoque v. The State of Assam and Anr

ORDER Date : 14.11.2024

Heard Mr. M. Hossain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam and Ms. P. Das, learned Amicus Curiae for the Page No.# 2/4 respondent No. 2.

¶2By this petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner, namely, Ezazul Hoque, has prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Gauripur P.S. Case No. 213/2024 (GR No. 869/2024) under Section 70(2), 62 of BNS, 2023 r/w Section 8 of POCSO Act (or Section 10 of POCSO Act).

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner is no way connected with the alleged offence as stated in the FIR. There is a dispute between the family members regarding marriage of the victim with the elder brother of the petitioner for which this false case has been instituted against the petitioner. The petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation. Considering the background of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the benefit of pre-arrest bail may be extended to the petitioner.

¶4On the other hand, Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has produced the case diary including the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and submits that the statement of the victim does not indicate any offence falls under the provision of POCSO Act.

¶5However, Ms. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has objected in granting bail to the petitioner.

¶6I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the case diary. Page No.# 3/4

¶7On perusal of the case diary, it reveals that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (183 BNSS) has stated that the petitioner along with other co-accused, forcibly dragged her to the bank of the river and when she raised alarm they fled away from the spot. The statement of the victim does not disclose any offence which falls under the category of Section 8 or 10 of POCSO Act.

¶8Under such backdrop, this Court finds that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation of the case. Therefore, the privilege of pre-arrest bail is granted to the petitioner.

¶9Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, named above, in connection with Gauripur P.S. Case No. 213/2024 (GR No. 869/2024) under Section 70(2), 62 of BNS, 2023 r/w Section 8 of POCSO Act (or Section 10 of POCSO Act), he shall be released on furnishing bail bond of Rs.30,000/- with a suitable surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.

¶10The direction for pre-arrest bail is subject to the conditions that the petitioner:

(a) shall appear before the Investigating Police Officer within ten days from today and shall co-operate with the investigation;

(b) shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case Page No.# 4/4 so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶11The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.

¶12Send back the case diary.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010176222024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2298/2024 EZAZUL HOQUE S/O BAJLU RAHMAN @ BAJLUL HOQUE, R/O VILL- ROWA PART-III (HINDURDAIR), P.S.-GAURIPUR, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783331 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:SHIRAJUL HOQUE S/O SOBAHAN ALI R/O VILL- ROWA PART-III (HINDURDAIR) P.S.-GAURIPUR DIST- DHUBRI (ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : M HOSSAIN, MR J HUSSAIN,MD A WADUD Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS P DAS, Amicus Curiae(R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI