MANASH JYOTI SHARMA v. THE STATE OF ASSAM
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
MANASH JYOTI SHARMA S/O SHRI HIRENDRA SHARMA R/O VILL AND P.O. PHULAGURI, P.S. RAHA DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782103 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A J SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR Date : 30.03.2023 ORDER Heard Mr. PD Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Sharma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent. By this petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, namely, Manash Jyoti Sharma has prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Raha P.S. Case No.45/2023 ( GR No. 344/2023) under Section 376 (2) (n) of the IPC r/w Section 9/10/11 (1) of Page No.# 2/2 Prohibition of Child Marriage Act r/w 6/7 of POCSO Act. The matter relates to the offence of child marriage and marital sexual assault. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the averments made in the petition, FIR along with documents annexed therewith, it appears that the age of the victim was 18 years and 2 months at the time of her marriage and she has a one and half year old baby. In the backdrop of facts and circumstances, this Court finds it not expedient for custodial interrogation of the petitioner. In view of above, the prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby granted. It is provided that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, named above, he shall be released on pre- arrest bail, in connection with the above noted case on furnishing bail bond of Rs.30,000/-( Thirty Thousand ) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject, of course, to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 7 days, failing which, on the 8th day, the anticipatory bail order shall automatically expire; and (ii) That the petitioner 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. This disposes of the anticipatory bail application. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 376(2)(n); Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gauhati High Court, on 30 Mar 2023. The bench was AJIT BORTHAKUR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.