Allowed

Monuj Roy v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC10 Mar 2021AB/433/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a pre-arrest bail application challenging an FIR under Sections 493/376/420 IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act. The court, noting the delay in lodging the FIR and the victim's age, observed that custodial interrogation was not essential and granted bail.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail to furnish a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with a suitable surety of the like amount.

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

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010022362021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB/433/2021

¶5

MONUJ ROY

¶6

S/O SRI PRADEEP ROY, R/O MILONPUR, BOGINADI, P.S.-BOGINADI, DISTLAKHIMPUR, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R SARMA

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶11

BEFORE

¶12

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA

¶13

ORDER

¶14

10-03-2021

¶15

This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C ., praying for pre-arrest bail by the petitioner, namely, Sri Monuj Roy, in connection with Boginodi Police Station Case No. 238 of 2020 , (corresponding to GR Case No. 2637/2020), registered under Sections 493/376/420 of the IPC,

¶16

read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act .

¶17

Heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Additional

¶18

Public Prosecutor.

¶19

The case diary produced, has been perused.

¶20

The fact reveals from the FIR, dated 24-11-2020, is that the informant was in love with the accusedpetitioner and the accused-petitioner had sexual intercourse with the victim/informant. It has been alleged

¶21

Page No.# 2/2

¶22

in the FIR that the sexual intercourse, referred to above, had taken place about 3 years back, meaning thereby, that the FIR itself was lodged after three years of the occurrence. The victim is 21 days short of 18 years. The allegation has been made in the FIR only when the accused-petitioner has allegedly refused to marry her and his father and uncle had thrown her out of their house after assaulting her.

¶23

Considering such background of the case, in the considered view of this Court this is not a case where custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential for the purpose of investigation of this case. Therefore, the petitioner is granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail.

¶24

Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, above named, in connection with the case aforementioned, he shall be released on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- , with a suitable surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of arresting authority. The direction for pre-arrest bail is subject to the conditions that the petitioner:

¶25

(a) shall appear before the Investigating Police Officer of concerned Police Station, within seven days from today and shall co-operate with the investigation;

¶26

(b) shall not hamper with the investigation, or tamper with the evidence of the case;

¶27

(c) shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶28

Return the case diary.

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Comparing Assistant

Monuj Roy v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monuj Roy 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

Th. Thoiba Singh Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Ditumoni Hazarika Vs Smti. Rimjim Bhattacharya

Dilwar Hussain Vs the State of Assam

Sonaram Pamehgam Vs the State of Assam

Md. Mehebub Alom @ Mavuv Alam Vs the State of Assam

Shahidul Islam Vs the State of Assam