Petitioner sought pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC for alleged kidnapping. Court noted victim's inconsistent statements regarding voluntary elopement versus forceful abduction. Denied custodial detention and granted pre-arrest bail.
Allowed pre-arrest bail on Rs.10,000 with one surety of like amount, directing appearance before I/O.
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
GAHC010052132022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/765/2022
MOYNAL HOQUE SK S/O NUR JALAL SK. R/O VILL- NO. 2 BHOMRABIL, P.O. HARAFUTA (GOLADANGI), P.S. GOSSAIGAON, DIST. KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM, PIN-783361
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A MONDAL
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
:: BEFORE ::
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN
O R D E R
11.05.2022
By filing this application under Section 438 of the CrPC, the petitioner, namely- Moynal Hoque Sk. has sought for pre-arrest bail, in the event of arrest, in connection with Gossaigaon P.S. Case No.365/2021 under Section 366(A) of
Page No.# 2/2
the IPC.
Heard learned counsel for both the parties. Also, perused the case diary as well as the documents annexed.
The statement of victim here has been recorded, both under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC. In her statement under Section 161 CrPC, she has specifically stated that out of love and affection she eloped with the accused person and went to Bengal and stayed there together with the accused petitioner for several days and thereafter she returned. But taking a twist to her earlier statement, in her version under Section 164 CrPC stated that she was forcefully taken away by the accused petitioner.
Going by her conduct itself, it reveals that she was taken to Bengal by the accused without any protest, which it indicates that she voluntarily went with the accused person. Such a different version of a girl who has gained sufficient maturity by this time cannot inspire the mind of the court. The accused person is also a young boy of 22 years.
Considering all above, this Court is of the opinion that custodial detention of the accused petitioner can be dispensed with.
Accordingly, the petitioner above named is allowed to go on pre-arrest bail of Rs.10,000/-, with one surety of like amount, in the event of his arrest by the arresting officer in connection with the aforesaid case, with further direction to the petitioner to appear before the I/O within 15(fifteen) days from today and give his statement and he shall also co-operate with the investigation of the case.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted to the petitioner in a case of kidnapping by诱导 (Section 366A IPC) based on inconsistency in the victim statement.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Moynal Hoque Sk
The State of Assam
Rumi Kumari Phukan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
