Mostafizur Rohman and 2 Ors v. The State of Assam and Anr

ORDER Date : 07.09.2023 Heard Mr. H. R. A. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also Heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State respondent. This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is filed for granting the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, namely, 1. Md. Mostafizur Rohman, 2. Rofiqul Islam, 3. Firdous Ul Kabir Mollah, apprehending arrest in connection with South Salmara P.S. Case No. 228/2023 registered u/s 120B/342/376 (f) (n)/294 (A)/506 of the IPC, r/w Sections 6/8/10/15 (2) of POCSO Act, r/w Section 67(A) of I.T. Act. The Case diary, as called for, is placed before the Court. An Additional affidavit has been filed by the petitioner No. 1 as regards receipt of notice by the respondent No. 2. The FIR inter-alia reveals the allegation that the informant, who is the Managing Director of Gyan Vikash Academy, Hatisingimari and the petitioner No. 1 herein, had come across some objectionable photographs of one Abdul Latif Ahmed, who is the teacher of the said academy, along with two girls on social media. It is also alleged that some miscreants are involved in illegal activities to bring down the reputation of the institution. A perusal of the case diary revealed that the incidents took place in the years 2021 and 2022. The victims stated that their school authority was aware about the incidents that took place in the year 2021 and 2022. But, the school authority did not take any action against the accused Abdul Latif Ahmed, a teacher of the school. It may be noted here that the petitioner No. 1 is the Principal and the petitioner No. 2 is the Vice Principal respectively of the said school. Page No.# 3/3 Upon hearing the learned counsel of both sides and in the backdrop of facts and attending circumstances of the case, as the petitioners are not the main accused persons in the case, this Court is of the view that their custodial interrogation in the interest of the ongoing investigation is not warranted. Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the petitioners, named above, shall be released on pre-arrest bail, in connection with the above noted case on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 30,000/- each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject, of course, to the following conditions:

(i) That the petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 7 days, failing which on and from the 8th day, this pre-arrest bail order shall have no force; and

(ii) That the petitioners shall 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. Any breach of the above conditions shall render cancellation of the pre-arrest bail in accordance with law. Return the case diary. This disposes of the anticipatory bail application. JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/3 GAHC010186382023 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oAB/2946/2023o MOSTAFIZURoROHMANoANDo2oORSo S/OoHAKIMoALIoSHEIKHo R/OoFULERCHARoPART-IIIo P.S.oSOUTHoSALMARAo DIST.oSOUTHoSALMARA-MANKACHAR. 2:oROFIQULoISLAM oS/OoLATEoAZIZURoRAHMANo R/OoKHOPATIAo P.S.oSUKCHARo DIST.oSOUTHoSALMARA-MANKACHAR 3:oFIRDOUSoULoKABIRoMOLLAH oS/OoABDUSoSABURoMOLLAHo R/OoROGHUPARAo P.S.oSOUTHoSALMARAo DIST.oSOUTHoSALMARA-MANKACHARo VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDoANRo REP.oBYoTHEoPP,oASSAM 2:ELIASoAHMED oS/OoSIRAJULoHOQUEoSARDERo R/OoPAGLATOLAo P.O.oFEKAMARIo P.S.oMANKACHARo DIST.oSOUTHoSALMARAoMANKACHAR oASSAM o PIN-78313o AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oMRoHoRoAoCHOUDHURYo Page No.# 2/3 Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR