In a bail application under Section 439 CrPC, the Gauhati High Court allowed bail to accused persons charged with child abduction and kidnaping under IPC 366 read with POCSO 12, deeming further detention unwarranted after reviewing the case diary and submissions.
Accused enlarged on bail by furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety.
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
GAHC010216362022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2808/2022
NURJAMAL HOQUE AND ANR S/O SAMSUL HOQUE VILL- SONERTARI P.S. TARABARI DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM PIN- 781305 2: SAHA ALAM ALI @ MD. SAH ALOM S/O MANNAN ALI VILL- CHATA P.S. TARABARI DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN-78130 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N J DUTTA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER
17.11.2022
Heard Mr. N.J. Dutta, learned counsel for the accused and Mr. R.J. Barua, learned Addl. P.P. for the State respondent.
This application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is preferred by accused/applicant, namely, Nurjamal Hoque and Saha Alam Ali @ Md. Sah Alom, who has been languishing in jail hazot in connection with the Hajo P.S. Case No. 927/2022, under Sections 366/34 of the IPC read with section 12 of POCSO Act, for granting bail.
The said case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by one Kasam Ali, on 06.10.2022, to the effect that his daughter Smti X “name withheld” at around 1 pm left for the tuition and on the way one Nurjamal Hoque, Sah Alom and Moinul Hoque forcefully taken her in a VIP car bearing registration no. As-01-DE-2136 and while they were proceeding to Guwahati Airport they have been apprehended by Azara police.
Mr. Dutta submits that the accused are behind the bar for the 41 days and in fact the victim girl and the accused were friend and they were proceeding towards Accoland and on the way they were apprehended by police, and therefore, Mr. Dutta contended to allow this petition.
On the other hand Mr. Barua by producing case diary before this court submits that the statement of the victim girl was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C which speaks otherwise.
Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have
Page No.# 3/3
carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the Case Diary with the assistance of Mr. Barua, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
However, having gone through the petition and the materials placed on record and also considering the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides and further considering the period of detention, this Court is of the view that further custodial detention of the accused persons seems to be unwarranted in the interest of investigation and therefore, this court is inclined to allow this petition.
Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000/- only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon the accused be enlarge on bail.
The case diary be returned.
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to accused persons held in custody in a child abduction and kidnipping case.
Whether continued custodial detention is warranted given the nature of allegations and period of detention.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Nurjamal Hoque
Saha Alam Ali @ Md. Sah Alom
State of Assam
Robin Phukan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
