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

Monowar Ali v. The State of Assam

Disposed Of
Court
High Court of Gauhati
Decided
16 February 2023
Bench
Kalyan Rai Suranaauthor
Case no.
Bail Appln. 3071/2022

Judgment

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010232372022 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oBailoAppln./3071/2022o MONOWARoALIo S/O-oLT.oSABEDoALI,oR/O-oVILL-oSASLAPARA,oP.S.oCHAPAR,oPERMANENTo ADDRESS-oVILL-oTUSHPARA,oP.S.oBILASIPARA,oDIST.-oDHUBRI,oASSAM,o PIN-o783348 VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMo REP.oBYoP.P.,oASSAM AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oMR.oMoUoMONDALo AdvocateoforotheoRespondento:oPP,oASSAMoo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo BEFORE HONOURABLEoMR.oJUSTICEoKALYANoRAIoSURANA ORDERo Dateo:oo16.02.2023 o Page No.# 2/4

Heard Mr. M.U. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Addl. P.P. for the State.

¶2The petitioners, namely, Monowar Ali, who was arrested on

25.08.2022 in connection with Chapar P.S. Case No. 155/2022 under Sections 366 IPC read with Section 8(2) of the POCSO Act, are seeking regular bail under section 439 Cr.P.C. In the said case, charge-sheet was submitted on 06.10.2022, and the said case is now being tried as Special (POCSO) Case No. 32/2022 under Sections 366-A IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no sign of an early trial of the case. It is also submitted that the medical report of the victim does not disclose any injury or recent sexual assault. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail.

¶4The learned Addl. P.P. has perused the scanned copy of the case diary as received from the learned trial Court and has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶5On a perusal of the scanned copy of the case diary, it appears that the victim, in her statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has implicated the petitioner of sexually assaulting her. As per medical report, the radiological age of the minor victim is 14-15 years and as per entry made in the seized school certificate, the date of birth of the minor victim is recorded as

21.06.2008. Therefore, on the date of alleged sexual assault, the minor victim was 14 months 2 month 1 day old.

¶6The victim was sexually assaulted on 22.08.2022 and she was rescued and recovered on 23.08.2022, but she was medically examined only on Page No.# 3/4

30.08.2022, and therefore, merely because the medical officer had opined that there was no sign of recent sexual intercourse, the accusation against the petitioner cannot be brushed aside, which can at best be examined at the stage of trial and in the considered opinion of the Court, at the stage of consideration of prayer for bail, the medical examination report cannot be a ground to discard the prosecution case that the petitioner had sexually assaulted the minor victim girl.

¶7In respect of the submissions that there is no chance of an early trial, it may be mentioned that the scanned copy of the order-sheet of the learned trial Court reveals that charge-sheet was submitted in this case on

06.10.2022, and charges were framed on 02.11.2022. However, for want of APP and defence counsel, the case was adjourned on 15.11.2022. The learned Addl. P.P. has submitted that the counsel are boycotting the court proceeding of the Presiding Officer of the said learned Court. If that be the case that the counsel for the petitioner is not co-operating with the trial, it would not constitute a ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail, as delay cannot be attributed to the Court. The petitioner also owes a duty to cooperate with trial so that the trial can be expedited.

¶8Hence, in light of the investigation carried out so far, the Court is of the considered opinion that under the circumstances, the petitioner above named is not entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected at this stage.

¶9Application is disposed of.

¶10The Registry shall not issue any certified/uncertified copy of any Page No.# 4/4 part of the scanned copy of the record received from the learned trial Court.

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.