Allowed

Raju Ojah v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC21 Dec 2022Bail Appln./2652/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application sought release on regular bail in connection with offences under Sections 120B/153A/195 IPC. The Court granted interim bail previously. The application was disposed of by making the interim bail absolute subject to specific conditions to prevent tampering and protect witness integrity.

What did the court decide?

The interim bail granted on 21.10.2022 was made absolute subject to five conditions regarding appearance and conduct.

Raju Ojah Vs the State of Assam — Bail and Remand | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010209732022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Bail Appln./2652/2022

¶5

RAJU OJAH S/O LATE SIDDIK OJAH R/O VILL- KHANDAKARPARA P.O. BHELLA, P.S. BARPETA, DIST. BARPETA, PIN-781309

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N DEKA

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶10

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Date : 21-12-2022

¶13

Heard Mr. N. Deka, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State of Assam.

¶14

By this application under Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure,

¶15

Page No.# 2/4

¶16

1973, the accused-petitioner viz. Shri Raju Ojah has prayed for his release on bail in connection with Barpeta Police Station Case no. 938/2022, registered for offences under Sections 120B/153A/195, Indian Penal Code [IPC].

¶17

On 17.09.2022, one First Information Report [FIR] was lodged by one Baby Gayan alleging that 3 [three] persons from Village Kaljahi Pathar had outraged her modesty on 16.09.2022 and the said FIR has been registered as Barpeta Police Station Case no. 931/2022 under Sections 341/294/352/354/382, IPC. In the FIR lodged in connection with Barpeta Police Station Case no. 938/2022 by a Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to Barpeta Police Station, it has been alleged that the three accused persons, [i] Raju Ojha [the accusedpetitioner], [ii] Jintu Ojah and [iii] Atikur Rahman Khan taking advantage of the institution of Barpeta Police Station Case no. 931/2022, had tried to spread a rumour that the informant in Barpeta Police Station Case no. 931/2022 was raped by the accused persons, who belong to a different community. The informant has made reference about involvement of the accused persons arraigned in Barpeta Police Station Case no. 938/2022, in other criminal cases.

¶18

The informant has also made accusations that the reason behind creating the rumour by the accused persons was for the purpose of taking revenge by using the informant in Barpeta Police Station Case no. 931/2022 for lodging the FIR therein with a concocted story. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor who has received the case diary, has submitted that the informant in Barpeta Police Station Case no. 931/2022 has, in the meantime, retracted from her version earlier, given in the FIR and has implicated the accused persons in Barpeta Police Station Case no. 938/2022 as the persons who influenced and coerced her to institute the said FIR in connection with Barpeta Police Station Case no. 931/2022.

¶19

Page No.# 3/4

¶20

The accused-petitioner was arrested on 21.09.2022 and since 21.09.2022, he is in custody. The Court by order dated 21.10.2022, granted interim bail to the accused-petitioner, subject to the conditions laid down in the order dated 21.10.2022. It is not the case of the prosecution that after release of the accused-petitioner on interim bail, the accused-petitioner has violated any of the conditions laid down in the order dated 21.10.2022 till date and/or has misused the liberty in any manner.

¶21

Having considered the same, this Court is of the considered view that the interim bail granted by order dated 21.10.2022 can be made absolute. Accordingly, the interim bail granted to the accused-petitioner by order dated 21.10.2022, is made absolute, subject to the following condition :

¶22

The accused-petitioner shall make himself available to the police or any other investigating agency or Court in the present case as and when required.

¶23

The accused-petitioner 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 Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. He shall not, in any manner, try to overawe or influence or intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶24

The accused-petitioner shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation/trial.

¶25

The accused-petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner.

¶26

The accused-petitioner shall appear before the I/O within 10 (ten) days from the date of his release and he shall continue to appear once in every

¶27

Page No.# 4/4

¶28

month till his appearance is dispensed with or charge-sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶29

The bail application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Raju Ojah v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Ojah 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

Sumi Deb and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Wajed Ali Vs the State of Assam

Mamu Saikia Gogoi and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Sangita Nath and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Ismail Sheikh @ Ismail and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Pankaj Thakur Vs the State of Assam