Single judge rejected the petitioner's bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a POCSO case where the victim was below 13 years, finding no ground for pre-arrest bail.
Bail application rejected; case diary returned.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No. 1/2
GAHC010292342019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB 4236/2019
1:MAHIBUL ALI AHMED
S/O SORIFUDDIN AHMED, R/O VILL-BAIKHUN GAON, P.O. AND P.S.DHALIGAON, DIST-CHIRANG, ASSAM
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
Date : 18-12-2019
Ms. S. Kanungoe, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, Assam.
By this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner namely, Mahibul Ali Ahmed has prayed for pre-arrest bail, apprehending his arrest, in connection with Dhaligaon P.S. Case No. 174/2019, registered under Section 376(3), I.P.C. read with Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
The case diary as called for, has been received.
I have perused the contents of the FIR. In the case diary, the statement of the victim and her birth certificate are available. As per the birth certificate, the date of birth of the
Page No. 2/2
victim is 22.07.2007. Thus, it can be seen that the victim was below 13 years on the date of occurrence. I have also perused the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. wherein the victim has clearly implicated the present petitioner.
Upon due consideration of the materials available in the case diary, I do not find this to be a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail under Section 438, Cr.P.C. to the petitioner.
Accordingly, this bail application stands rejected. Return the case diary.
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the present case is a fit case to extend pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner.
Whether the impugned bail application deserves to be accepted.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Mahibul Ali Ahmed
The State of Assam
Manish Choudhury
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
