Hirak Jyoti Pathak @ Hirakjyoti Pathak v. The State of Assam

ORDER

17.11.2023

Heard Mr. N.K. Kalita, learned counsel for the accused and Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

¶2This application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is preferred by accused, namely, Hirak Jyoti Pathak @ Hirakjyoti Pathak, who has been languishing in jail hazot in connection with the Satgaon P.S. Case No. 204/2023, under Sections 498[A]/307 of the IPC Page No.# 2/3 read with Sections 3/5 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, for granting bail.

¶3The aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by Smti 'X' [name withheld], on 02.11.2023. The essence of allegations made in the FIR is that she got married with one Hirak Jyoti Pathak on 08.07.2022, and thereafter, they started living as a husband and wife in the house of Hirak Jyoti Pathak and after the marriage her husband and her family members subjected her to both physical and mental cruelty and on 31.10.2023, her husband and her mother-in-law assaulted her and also poured kerosene oil over her and attempted to set her on fire.

¶4Mr. Kalita, learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused was arrested on 03.11.2023, and since then he has been languishing in jail hazot for last 14 days. Mr. Kalita further submits that basically the allegation is against the mother-in-law of the present accused and she has already been enlarged on pre-arrest bail by this Court, vide order dated 14.11.2023, and that the present accused is innocent and no way involved with the offence alleged in the FIR and therefore, it is contended to enlarge the accused on bail.

¶5On the other hand, Mr. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed the petition by contending that there are sufficient materials on the record to show his complicity with the offence alleged.

¶6Having heard the submission of learned Advocates for both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record.

¶7Considering the period of detention and balancing the same with the nature of accusation as well as the punishment prescribed for the same and also Page No.# 3/3 considering the submission of learned Advocates for both sides, this Court is of the considered opinion that further custodial detention of the accused seems to be not required in the interest of investigation.

¶8Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- only, with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup [M] at Guwahati, the accused be enlarged on bail.

¶9In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010255292023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./4156/2023 HIRAK JYOTI PATHAK @ HIRAKJYOTI PATHAK S/O SRI SARBANANDA PATHAK R/O H/N 6, PUBERUN PATH BHAGHARBORI, P.S. SATGAON DIST. KAMRUP (METRO), PIN-781037 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N K KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN