Single Judge granted bail to the petitioner accused of attempted rape of a minor under POCSO Act and IPC,Finding no necessity for custodial detention despite 228 days in custody, subject to conditions.
Bail granted with bond surplus Rs. 15,000 and surety. Conditions include not leaving jurisdiction, not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
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
GAHC010009922022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./122/2022
KANAK DAS SON OF LATE RABENDRA DAS R/O VILL- NO. 02, BALAHATI P.S. GORESWAR DIST. BAKSA, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B CHOWDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA
ORDER
Date : 11-02-2022
The Court proceedings have been conducted through VideoConference due to COVID-19 pandemic.
Heard Mr. B Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. BB Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State
Page No.# 2/3
respondent.
This is an application, filed under Section 439 of the Cr.PC. seeking bail of the petitioner, namely, Shri Kanak Das, in connection with SPL(POCSO) Case No. 16/2021 pending before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Baksa, Mushalpur arising out Goreswar Police Station Case No. 120/2021 (corresponding to GR Case No. 742/2021) registered under Sections 376/511 of the IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act.
The scanned copy of the case diary as well as the status report has been received.
As per the status report the case is pending at the stage of evidence.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody w.e.f. 26.06.2021 and as such for a period of 228 days.
I have considered the scanned copy of the case diary.
The statements of the witnesses, particularly the victim herself and the informant are found to the effect that the petitioner had grabbed the victim from behind with a view to commit rape on her. But, the rape could not be committed. The petitioner had touched the breast of the victim. The chargesheet in the instant case has been laid under Sections 376/511 of the IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act.
Considering the materials in the case diary, the fact of the case as well as the period of detention of the petitioner for 228 days, this Court is of the view that custodial detention of the petitioner is not necessary as custodial trial does not appear to be essential in the instant case. Therefore, he is granted bail.
Accordingly, the accused-petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail
Page No.# 3/3
in connection with the abovementioned case on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 15,000/- with a suitable surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned jurisdictional Special Judge under the POSCO Act subject to imposing conditions as deemed fit by him.
The direction for bail is further subject to the conditions that the accusedpetitioner:
(a) shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the learned jurisdictional Special Judge under the POCSO Act, without prior written permission from him;
(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.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a POCSO case where custodial trial is not essential.
Whether the petitioner bonded with a suitable surety and under specific bail conditions.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kanak Das
State of Assam
Hitesh Kumar Sarma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
