THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM & Anr.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 439
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 363, 376(AB), 511
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 s. 8
Judgment
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR Date : 19.09.2022 ORDER Heard Mr. S Islam, learned counsel for the accused petitioner as well as Mr. BB Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State respondent. By this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the accused-petitioner, namely, Rabial Hoque @ Rabiyal Hogue, has prayed for grant of bail in connection with Mankachar P.S. Case No.176/2022 under Section 363/376 (AB) /511 of the IPC r/w Section 8 of the POCSO Act. Case diary is received. The allegation in the FIR dated 19.06.2022 reveals that on 21.03.2022 at about 8 am , while the grand-daughter of the informant was going to her parental house from his residence, on the advice of the accused petitioner No.2, the accused petitioner No. 1 induced her and took her to his bed room and forcefully tried to rape her. It is noticed that the accused petitioner has been in judicial custody for 90 days since
21.06.2022. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the case diary, it is seen that there is prima facie incriminating material against the accused petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. The medical report does not reveal any sign of sexual intercourse. However, considering the length of detention of the accused petitioner in judicial custody, this Court is of the considered opinion that further continuation of detention of the accused petitioner in the interest of investigation is not warranted. Accordingly, it is provided that the accused petitioner, namely, Rabial Hoque @ Rabiyal Hogue shall be released on bail of Rs. 40,000/- ( Forty Thousand) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act) , South Salmara, Mankachar subject to the following conditions- : Page No.# 3/3 (i) That the accused petitioner shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer as and when required; and (ii) That the accused 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 from disclosing such facts to the Police Officer or the Court. This disposes of the bail application. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 363, 376(AB), 511; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 8.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gauhati High Court, on 19 Sep 2022. 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.