THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail granted
facing financial hardship and she has no objection if bail is granted to the petitioner
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 439
- Protection of Child Marriage Act, 2006 ss. 9, 10, 11
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ss. 6, 17
Judgment
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. L R MAZUMDER Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI Date : 15-11-2023 ORDER Heard Mr. A. Z. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, and Mr. M. Hussain, learned Page No.# 2/3 counsel appearing for the informant/victim. This Bail Application under Section 439 of the CrPC has been filed by the accused- petitioner, namely, Puni Lal Basfor, for grant of regular bail in connection with Mankachar Police Station Case No. 386/2023, under Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Protection of Child Marriage Act, 2006, read with Section 6 and 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012. He was arrested on 16.03.2023 and since then has been languishing in jail. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the accused-petitioner was arrested on 03.10.2023 and he is languishing in jail for the last 44 days.
The accused- petitioner got married with the victim girl about 6 years back and since then they are living together as husband and wife and they also have two children out of their wedlock. Now the victim is 22 years of age. It is also submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner that he has ever committed any sexual assault to the victim girl, which falls under the purview of the POCSO Act. It is further submitted that considering the period of detention, the accused-petitioner may be enlarged on bail on any such conditions as may be imposed by the Court. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that he has no objection if bail is considered to the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the informant has submitted that the victim has sworn an affidavit stating that she is the wife of the accused-petitioner and her husband was arrested in connection with the case.
Operative part
Now she is about 18 years of age having two children. It is also stated in the affidavit that due to absence of her husband they are facing financial hardship and she has no objection if bail is granted to the petitioner. In view of the above and considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that further custodial detention of the accused-petitioner is not necessary in the interest of investigation of the case. Accordingly, it is hereby directed that the accused-petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail in connection with Mankachar Police Station Case No. 386/2023, under Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Protection of Child Marriage Act, 2006, read with Section 6 and 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012, on furnishing of bail bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one suitable surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, South Salmara, Mankachar.
The direction for bail is further subject to the conditions that the accused-petitioner: Page No.# 3/3 (a) shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge, South Salmara, Mankachar, without prior written permission from him/her; (b) shall not hamper with the investigation, or temper with the evidence of the case; (c) 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 Court or to any police officer. In terms of the above, this Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: facing financial hardship and she has no objection if bail is granted to the petitioner
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439; Protection of Child Marriage Act, 2006 — ss. 9, 10, 11; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — ss. 6, 17.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gauhati High Court, on 15 Nov 2023. The bench was MALASRI NANDI.
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.