Gejum Bomnyo v. THE STATE OF AP
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 4, 438
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 354(D), 363, 376
- POSCO Act, 2012 s. 4
Judgment
1:Gejum Bomnyo S/o Sri Togi Bomnyo, A Permanent Resident of Liru Village, PO/PS Likabali, Lower Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS 1:THE STATE OF AP Represented by the Public Prosecutor Advocate for the Petitioner : Rintu Saikia Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN Date : 15-03-2022 ORDER Heard Mr. I. Bam, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. G. Tado, learned Additional PP, representing the State respondent. It is to be mentioned here that this application, under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is preferred by the accused applicant, apprehending arrest in connection with Likabali P.S Case No.07/2022, under Section 363/354(D)/376 IPC, read with Section 4 of POSCO Act, 2012. Page No.# 2/3 The allegation against the applicant is that he had kidnapped the minor daughter of Smti Jumpi Gara on 09.12.2019, and committed rape upon her by assuring to marry her while she was studying in class IX at the age of 13 years.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR has been lodged after 2 (two) years of committing the offence and that the matter has been compromise and on the very next date of filing of the FIR, of one application has been filed by the complainant Jumpi Gara with the O.C of Likabali police station to withdrawn the FIR dated 08.03.2022, and that the petitioner is innocent and he is ready to cooperate with the investigating agency and therefore, Mr. Bam, learned counsel contended to allow the petition. On the other hand Mr. G. Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, producing the Case Diary before this Court submits that I.O has collected sufficient materials in supports the allegation made in the FIR and at the relevant time of occurrence, the petitioner was below 16 years and that in view of the Sub-Section 4 to Section 438 Cr.P.C. if the victim is below the 16 years the provision of Section 438 Cr.P.C will not apply.
Operative part
Mr. Tado, therefore, contended to dismissed this petition. Having heard the submission of learned Advocate of both sides, I have carefully gone through the documents and the materials placed before this Court. It appears that I.O has collected sufficient materials in support of the allegation made in the FIR. The offence is serious in the nature and the punishment prescribed same is for minimum 20 years which may extend up to life imprisonment. Considering the nature of accusation and the materials collected so far in the Case Diary in support of the same and also the punishment prescribed for offence this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case where the privilege of pre-arrest bail can be extended to the petitioner. Page No.# 3/3 Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. Case Diary be send back. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 4, 438; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 354(D), 363, 376; POSCO Act, 2012 — s. 4.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gauhati High Court, on 15 Mar 2022. The bench was ROBIN PHUKAN.
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.