Dismissed

Rejaul Islam v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC4 Aug 2021AB/1941/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court rejected petition for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case of aggravated sexual intercourse and rape. Court held that while the victim's affidavit stated she was 19 at the time of offence, investigation birth certificate showed she was a minor, thus necessitating child sexual offence provisions.

What did the court decide?

Application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. rejected.

Rejaul Islam Vs the State of Assam — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010103852021

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶4

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : AB/1941/2021

¶6

REJAUL ISLAM SON OF JALIL MIYA @ ABDUL JALIL MIYA VILL- DEUDHUTURI P.S. AND DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM, PIN-783101

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶11

BEFORE

¶12

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 04-08-2021

¶15

Heard Shri HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner who has filed this application under section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with Goalpara PS Case No.243/2021 registered under sections 366(A)/376 IPC.

¶16

At the outset, the senior counsel fairly submits that on an earlier occasion, this Court vide order dated 17.06.2021 had rejected the bail of the petitioner. Shri Choudhury, learned senior counsel, however, submits that there are certain developments for which reconsideration is warranted.

¶17

Page No.# 2/2

¶18

Attention of this Court has been drawn to an affidavit allegedly sworn by the victim Jaminur Nehar dated 20.07.2017 wherein, it has been stated that the victim is of 19 years. Learned senior counsel further submits that the medical documents would also reveal that the petitioner was not a minor.

¶19

On the other hand, Shri R Baruah, learned Addl. PP, Assam submits that the affidavit annexed to the petition dated 20.07.2017 cannot be a substantive piece of evidence to determine the issue of age of victim.

¶20

It is also seen that the signatures appearing in both the pages of the affidavit differ from the signature of the informant (alleged victim) appearing in the FIR as well as the ejahar filed before the police on 11.04.2021.

¶21

Learned Addl. PP, Assam further submits that in the course of investigation the birth certificate of the alleged victim is also traced out from which, it is evident that the victim was a minor at the time of commission of the offence.

¶22

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no case for grant of discretion to enlarge the petitioner on pre-arrest bail is made out.

¶23

Accordingly the petition stands rejected.

¶24

JUDGE

¶25

Comparing Assistant

Rejaul Islam v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rejaul Islam v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nazrul Islam Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Pradeep Kumar Vs the State of Assam

Debananda Paul Vs the Union of India

Karna Dhar Das Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Abdul Hannan Ali @ Bablu Vs the State of Assam

Anadhir Ranjan Paul Vs Preetom Saikia and 4 Ors.