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

Juri Devi Sarma v. The State of Assam

Allowed
Court
High Court of Gauhati
Decided
22 December 2023
Bench
Kaushik Goswamiauthor
Case no.
Bail Appln. 4644/2023

Judgment

O R D E R

22.12.2023

¶1Heard Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. S. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Addl. P.P. for the State respondent.

¶2This is an application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. praying for granting regular bail to the petitioner, namely, Juri Devi Sarma in connection with Cyber Police Station Case No. 12/2023, registered under Sections 120(B)/419/420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 R/W Section 66C/66D of the IT Act, 2000 and added Sections 409/468/471 IPC.

¶3The case of the prosecution is that on 02.11.2023, Mr. Papu Gogoi, Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle, informant, lodged an FIR before the Cyber Police Station, Panbazar, Guwahati, alleging inter-alia that:- "As directed by Deputy Commissioner vide CK (M)/CB/3/2018/565-A dtd. 01/11/23, 1, Shri Papu Gogoi, ACS, Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle, is hereby lodging an FIR for detection of unauthorised access of CO login (gogoi1234) of Dispur Revenue Circle. That a detail report in the matter was submitted to District Commissioner, Kamrup (M) on 01/11/2023. Page No.# 3/5 That it came to the notice of the undersigned regarding a mutation order passed online in Dharitree portal on 05/10/2023 in case no MET/DIS/2022-23/96042/OMUT against a deed bearing serial 6268 dtd 31/12/1995; wherein no offline case record of any notice issued, order etc. was found to be available in the office of the undersigned. Upon enquiry, LM reported that neither field verification nor any report was submitted in respect of the referred mutation case. Having found out the matter, the undersigned officially communicated to DIO, NIC, Kamrup

(M) to kamrupmetro@nic.in on 28/10/2023 requesting for login history details from 01/10/2023 to 26/10/2023, the undersigned examined the records of the login history and following observations were made:

¶1That an IP address 10.177.88.65 had record of login/logout history of 52 times from 04/10/2023 to 26/10/2023.

¶2That an IP address 10.177.88.58 had record of login/logout history of 2 times on 10/10/2023

That the list of official 33 Operational IP Addresses in the office of the Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle is submitted herewith for reference. The above stated IP addresses are not from the official list of 33 IP addresses allotted to the office of the Dispur Revenue Circle. Hence, the access made by the above referred IP addresses are unauthorized and illegal, which therefore require detail investigation and expert examination of the matter during my tenure as Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle from 16/06/2023 to till date."

¶4Mr. B. D. Konwar, learned Senior Advocate submits that the accused petitioner has been wrongly implicated and her name was not mentioned in the FIR. He further submits that she at the relevant point of time was working as a Extra Writer in the Sub-Register office, Kamrup (M) and that the Sub-Registerers, who are the main accused have already been granted interim bail. He further submits that in the meanwhile around 2019, the petitioner has Page No.# 4/5 already been transferred from the office of the Sub-Registerer, Kamrup (M) to office of the Sub-Registerer to Panikhati, Kamrup.

¶5By referring on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharat Babu Digumarti Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) reported in

(2017) Vol-II page 18, he submits that once the provisions of a Special Act has been registered along with the Provision of General Act, the Provisions of the Special Act shall have a overriding effect and the accused/petitioner shall get out of the General Act. He further submits that there is no material available on record indicating that the present petitioner is required in any other cases.

¶6On the other hand, Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Addl. P.P. strongly opposes the prayer of the bail. He submits that investigation is still going on and is at the initial stage and therefore, if the accused/petitioner is released on bail, the same shall hamper the ongoing investigation.

¶7I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the case record. It appears that the accused/petitioner was arrested on the basis of the statement given by the co-accused, who has been arrested in several other cases in connection with similar offences. Besides the statement of the co-accused, there is nothing else on record as of now to implicate the petitioner.

¶8Keeping in mind, the nature of allegation, length of detention and considering all aspects of the matter, the petitioner, namely, Juri Devi Sarma Page No.# 5/5 shall be enlarged on bail of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Kamrup (M), Guwahati,

¶9The bail granted to the petitioner shall be subject to the following conditions-

i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer once in a month until the entire investigation of the case is completed and as and when called by the Investigating Police Officer for the purpose of investigation of the case;

ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer;

iii) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission till completion of the trial; and

iv) The petitioner shall refrain from such activities with which he is alleged, failing which, his bail order shall stand cancelled.

¶10With the above observation, this bail application stands allowed.

¶11This disposes of the bail application.

¶12It is needless to say that the observations made in course of this bail order shall not have any bearing on the independent judicial discretion of the learned trial Court. JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Case details

Parties and counsel

PageoNo.#o1/5 GAHC010291932023 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oBailoAppln./4644/2023o JURIoDEVIoSARMAo W/OoPRANABoKUMARoSARMAo R/OoH/NO.o16,oALOKoPATHoLICHUBARIo P.O.oKHANAPARA,oP.S.oDISPUR,o DIST.oKAMRUPo(M),oASSAM,oPIN-781022,oPH.oNO.o9435144440 VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMo REP.oBYoTHEoPP,oASSAM AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oMR.oBoDoKONWARoSR.oADV.o AdvocateoforotheoRespondento:oPP,oASSAMoo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

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.