Applicant sought pre-arrest bail in a case alleging sexual harassment and harassment via IT messages. The bench examined the complaints and police materials, finding no need for custodial interrogation, and converted prior interim bail to absolute bail.
Interim pre-arrest bail granted on 29.01.2021 is made absolute.
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.# 1/3
GAHC010015892021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/249/2021
AJAY KUMAR
S/O LATE VISHNUDEO SINGH, P/R/O 201, FEJ-2, BRINDAVAN APARTMENT, MALAHI PAKARI HANUMAN NAGAR, TOWN/VILL-PATNA, ANCHALPATNA SADAR, DIST-PATNA, PIN-800020, P/R/A HOUSE NO.-4, 4TH FLOOR, NEAR FCI BUILDING, STEAMGHAT, SILCHAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. JYOTIRMOY ROY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA
04-03-2021
This is an application, filed under Section 438 of the Cr.PC. seeking pre-arrest bail of the accused-petitioner, namely, Ajay Kumar, in connection with Silchar P.S. Case No.235/2021 registered under Sections 120B/354(A)/ 354/379/342/506 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 67 of Information Technology Act .
Heard Mr. J. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the Respondent State, assisted by Mr. A.
Page No.# 2/3
Goyal, learned counsel for the informant.
The fact of the case, as appears from the FIR, is that the informant Smti. Sonali H. Sharma, Technical Assistant II, Divisional Office of FCI, Silchar, alleged, inter alia, that the present accused/petitioner used to call her after office hours even at night without any official matter and sent sensuous – sexually coloured messages to her. It was further alleged that the informant felt sexually harassed, humiliated, insulted by the present accused/petitioner. It is also alleged that the accused petitioner intentionally allotted much of official work to her so that she is forced to sit in office even after working hours till night to accomplish his evil desire and design with some other allegations against the present accused petitioner and other officials of the said office.
Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case is based on fabricated facts. He has further submitted that before the present FIR, a complaint was filed before the District Women Redressal Cell, FCI, Silchar, wherein she had never made any allegation of sexual harassment against the present petitioner, except the allegation of compelling her to serve till late hours and, even on Sunday. The present FIR has been filed thereafter. The District Women Redressal Cell found the allegations made against the petitioner not to be true, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, referring to the SMS messages of the petitioner, sent to the informant, has fairly submitted that he did not find the messages to be sexually coloured. Copies of some of such messages have been annexed with the petition and, on perusal thereof, this Court has found those to be not sexually coloured messages.
Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for the informant has submitted that those messages are sexually coloured and, therefore, the petitioner should not be granted bail.
As indicated above, on perusal of the case diary, it is found that there is no such material against the petitioner requiring his custodial interrogation. On the other hand, he has appeared before the investigating police officer after he was granted interim protection dated 29.01.2021 and, has not misused the liberty granted to him while availing the interim protection. That apart, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, he has already been transferred to Shillong and, therefore, he is not in a position to interfere with the investigation of the case and manipulate with the record relevant for the purpose of investigation of the case.
Page No.# 3/3
Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for the informant has stated that although he has been transferred, he has not yet left the place of his present posting for Shillong.
Whatever it may be, in view of the materials in the case diary, as indicated above, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not essential.
Accordingly, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 29.01.2021 is made absolute by this order on the same terms and conditions.
The anticipatory bail application, accordingly, stands disposed of.
Return the case diary.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail should be made absolute when the court finds messages are not sexually coloured and custodial interrogation is not essential.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
AJAY KUMAR S/O LATE VISHNUDEO SINGH
THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
HITESH KUMAR SARMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
