In a bail application under Section 438 CrPC for forcible rape of a 14-year-old minor under POCSO, the Court rejected the plea, citing the severity of the offence, the complicity of the accused, and the minority of the victim as making it a non-fit case for pre-arrest bail.
Bail application rejected; privilege of pre-arrest bail not granted.
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
GAHC010148632021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/2843/2021
RANA SINGHA SON OF RANJIT SINGHA R/O PALARPUR, BAGHMARA P.O. PASGRAM, HAILAKANDI, ASSAM, PIN-788151
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
2:SMTI. DIPU MALAKAR W/O BIMAL CHANDRA MALAKAR VILL- RATANPUR PART-I
P.S. AND DIST. HAILAKAND
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN ORDER
04.01.2022
By way of this bail application filed under Section 438 CrPC, petitioner, namely, Rana Singha, has sought for pre-arrest bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Hailakandi PS Case No. 136/2021, under Sections 448/376/323/354(B)/34 IPC, read
Page No.# 2/2
with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 67 of the IT Act, 2000
Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Notice issued to the respondent is deemed to be served.
Also perused the record and the Case Diary.
The victim, herein, is a 14 years old girl and taking advantage of her loneliness on the date of occurrence, the accused committed forceful rape upon her, which was also witnessed by the daughter-in-law of the informant, while she (the victim) made hue and cry.
It is stated by the accused that he proposed to marry the victim, to which she refused and a false case has been filed.
From the attending facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the accused made forceful rape upon the victim girl despite her protest and as per the birth certificate, her date of birth is 31.01.2007. Although there is delay in filing the FIR, but the same has been explained by the informant and the victim that due to the threat shown by the accused petitioner, they were reluctant to file the case, but in the meantime, the petitioner has uploaded the obscene videos captured by the accused petitioner.
Considering all entirety of the matter and the severity of the offence and the complicity of the accused petitioner and that particularly the victim is a minor one, this court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the accused petitioner. Accordingly, his bail application stands rejected.
Return the Case Diary.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC should be granted in a forcible rape case under the POCSO Act involving a minor victim?
Whether the accused's claim of false implication resulting from a failed marriage proposal negates the gravity of the forcible rape offence?
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Rana Singha
State of Assam
Rumi Kumari Phukan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
