WAJID HUSSAIN @ MUNNA v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

2:MISS. AMINA KUMAR @ SUKH W/O SRI MOHAN TANTI R/O NAKHRAI TEA ESTATE P.S - TINSUKIA DIST. - TINSUKIA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K GUPTA, MR. R S MISHRA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND Date : 04-02-2025 ORDER Heard Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner Wajid Hussain @ Munna, who has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since Page No.# 2/4

15.06.2024 in connection with Special POCSO Case No. 115 (T)/2024 arising out of Tinsukia Police Station Case No. 518/2023 under Section 166A/342/354A/506/509/34/376/120B/195A/212 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) read with Section 8/17/18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act, 2012 for short) with added Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 read with Section 14 of the Child Labour Prohibition and Regulation Act, 1986.

2. It is submitted that vide order of this Court dated 08.01.2024 in connection with Bail Application No. 4206/2023, the petitioner was granted bail. It is further submitted that the petitioner failed to appear before the learned Trial Court only on four dates. Warrant was issued against the petitioner and the petitioner finally surrendered before the learned Trial Court on 15.06.2024 and since then he has been behind bars. It is submitted that the petitioner is an elderly person and he is being wrongly incarcerated. The statement of the victim has been recorded. The informant-cum-victim has committed suicide. The evidence of the victim and the evidence of the State witnesses are annexed along with the petition which clearly depicts that there is no incriminating evidence against the petitioner and there is every possibility that the petitioner will be acquitted from this case.

3. The petitioner had earlier preferred a bail application before this Court being BA No. 3992/2023 and the petitioner was directed to appear before the learned Trial Court as charge sheet was submitted against him. As he is behind bars, he approached the learned Trial Court for bail and vide order dated

13.11.2024, petitioner’s bail petition has been rejected by the learned Trial Court. Page No.# 3/4

4. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner is before this Court.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. B. Sarma has raised serious objection stating that the petitioner is a history sheeter. Annexure-B of the petition clearly reveals that the petitioner is an accused in connection with Tinsukia Police Station Case No. 122/2018 under Section 120B/406/420 of IPC and Tinsukia Police Station Case No. 1034/2018 under Section 498 (A) of IPC.

6. It is further submitted that vide the order dated 27.01.2025 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in connection with Bail Application No. 3748/2024, petitioner’s bail prayer in connection with POCSO Case No. 92(T)/2024 has been rejected. It is submitted that as far as record goes, the petitioner is involved in four different cases and therefore, he is not entitled to bail. He is involved in two cases under the POCSO Act, 2012.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. in connection with SLP (Criminal) No. 13378/2024 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that : “14. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused.

15. Over a period of time, we have noticed two things, i.e., (i) either bail is granted after the charge is framed and just before the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before the trial court, or (ii) bail is granted once the recording of the oral evidence of the victim is complete by looking into some discrepancies here or there in the deposition and thereby testing the credibility of the victim.

16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial commences, it should be Page No.# 4/4 allowed to reach to its final conclusion which may either result in the conviction of the accused or acquittal of the accused. The moment the High Court exercises its discretion in favour of the accused and orders release of the accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence of the victim. It is only in the event if the trial gets unduly delayed and that too for no fault on the part of the accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on the ground that right of the accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed.”

8. It is further submitted that the petitioner‘s step-daughter, who was a victim in this case has committed suicide under mysterious circumstances and this is the reason why the petitioner’s prayer for bail was rejected by the Trial Court.

9. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection. It is true that the record reveals that the petitioner is an accused in four different cases and two cases are under the POCSO Act. It is also true that one victim of this case has committed suicide. The merits of the case are not brought to the fore as trial is proceeding in connection with this case against the petitioner.

10. In the wake of the foregoing discussions and in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. in connection with SLP (Criminal) No. 13378/2024, petition with prayer for bail stands rejected at this stage.

11. In terms of the above observation, this Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant