Bail Appln./3705/2024 OMAR ALI @ AMAR SK v. THE STATE OF ASSAM & Anr.
Case at a glance
- Bench
- MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
Outcome
Disposed of
With the above observations, this bail application is hereby disposed of
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 1212. With the above observations, this bail application is hereby disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Judgment
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ, MR. SURAJIT DAS,SAMIM RAHMAN,A S CHOUDHURY,MR A W AMAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. A A MONDAL(R-2),MR A ALAM (R-2),MR R A AHMED(R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
06.02.2025 ORDER Page No.# 2/4
Heard Mr. S. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam as well as Mr. R.A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Omar Ali @ Amar Sk , who is detained behind the bars for last 9 months 26 days, in connection with Gauripur P.S. Case No. 106/2022, registered under Section 366, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, and Section 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
The gist of accusation in this case is that the father of the victim girl (respondent no.2) have lodged an FIR on 23.02.2022 before the Officer In- Charge of Gauripur Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that since two months prior to filing of the FIR, the daughter of the first informant went missing. It is also alleged that the accused persons named in the FIR including the present petitioner took the victim girl to Delhi and sold her to some other person.
On receipt of the said FIR, the Gauripur P.S. Case No. 106/2022 was registered and investigation was initiated. Ultimately, on completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was laid against three accused persons including the present petitioner showing other two accused persons have absconder.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had love affair with the victim girl and was pressuring him to marry her. However, when the petitioner has refused to do so, she came in contact with another person, namely, Harish Kumar of Haryana and an intimate relationship developed between both of them. Page No.# 3/4
The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the Special Case No. 323/2024 is pending before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, POCSO. However, the trial could not proceed due to the fact that the co-accused persons are yet to be apprehended. He submits that the petitioner is ready to face trial and considering, the period of detention has already undergone by the petitioner. The petitioner may be allowed to go on bail.
On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. K.K. Das, has opposed the grant of bail to the present petitioner, on the ground that there are implicating materials against the petitioner in the case record and since, the matter involves offences under POCSO Act, 2012, releasing the petitioner at this stage may subject the witnesses, including the victim, to the influence of the petitioner.
On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the respondent no.2, who is the father of the victim has submitted that considering the period of detention undergone by the petitioner, he does not oppose the prayer for bail of the present petitioner.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the materials available on record including the scanned copies of the record of Special Case No. 323/2024. Though, there are incriminating materials available against the petitioner in the case records. However, it is a fact that the petitioner has been detained behind the bars since
10.04.2024, i.e., more than nine months and trial is yet to commence. The absconding co-accused persons are yet to be apprehended and the case of the petitioner is not yet split up from the case of absconding accused persons. Page No.# 4/4
Under such circumstances, if it is ensured that the petitioner would not influence the witnesses, including the victim, if released on bail, his custodial detention may not be necessary for fair completion of the trial.
In view of the above, all the above-named petitioner is hereby allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with a suitable surety of like amount each, subject to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge- cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Dhubri, with the following conditions:- (a) That the petitioner shall co-operate in the Trial. (b) That the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to the victim girl or to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Trial Court or to any police officer.
Operative part
With the above observations, this bail application is hereby disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the above observations, this bail application is hereby disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 366; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 6; Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 — s. 10.
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.