Allowed

Raju Debnath v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC19 Jul 2022Bail Appln./661/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences under IPC 366 read with POCSO Section 4, the Court observed conflicting evidence regarding whether the victim was kidnapped or eloped. Relying on the fact that the victim alleged a love relationship and married the accused, and noting no marks of violence, the Court held further detention was unnecessary and granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

The accused petitioner was released on bail of Rs. 30,000 with one surety of like amount, subject to conditions of appearing in court and not dissuading witnesses.

Raju Debnath Vs the State of Assam and Anr. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010058342022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Bail Appln./661/2022

¶5

RAJU DEBNATH S/O LATE MONILAL DEBNATH, R/O JUNAKI NAGAR, SILAPATHAR TOWN, P.S. SILAPATHAR, DIST. DHEMAJI, ASSAM

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR THROUGH THE PP, ASSAM

¶8

2:SMTI. KANCHAN ROY W/O SRI BIJAY ROY VILL- NATUN MISSING GAON P.S. SILAPATHAR P.O. SILAPATHAR DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN-78705

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U DUTTA

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶11

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR ORDER

¶12

Date : 19.07.2022

¶13

Heard Mr. U. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner as well as Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State respondent.

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

By this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the accused-petitioner, namely, Sri Raju Debnath , has prayed for grant of bail in connection with Special (POCSO) Case No. 43(DH)/2021 u/s 366 of the IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act arising out of G.R. Case No. 505/2021 (corresponding to Silapathar P.S. Case No. 212/2021.

¶16

The scanned copy of the case record along with the case diary, as called for, is placed before the Court.

¶17

It is noticed that the accused petitioner has been in judicial custody for 295 days since 27.09.2021.

¶18

Mr. U. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner, submits that the accused petitioner has been charge-sheeted and the learned Trial Court has framed charges, but no prosecution witness is examined till date. On the other hand, Mr. Dutta submits that the victim, who is aged more than 17 years, had a love relationship with the accused and as a result, she eloped with him and solemnized their marriage at a temple in Tripura. Mr. Dutta, therefore, submits that the accused petitioner, who has been in judicial custody for more than six months and aged about 23 years, may be directed to be released on bail subject to any condition.

¶19

Opposing the bail application, Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, submits that as the victim is a minor and the case is presently pending in evidence stage, where the material witnesses are yet to be examined, granting of bail would be prejudicial to a fair and speedy trial of the case.

¶20

The FIR reveals the allegation that on 21.04.2021, the accused petitioner,

¶21

Page No.# 3/4

¶22

taking the advantage of absence of other family members, kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant from his house and since then her whereabouts was not known.

¶23

It is noticed that as per Birth Certificate, the date of birth of the victim is 19.08.2004 and, as such, her age on the date of occurrence, that is, on 21.04.2021, was 16 years 8 months 2 days. The said Birth Certificate was issued after about 16 years on 16.10.2020. The radiological test report reveals that her age is between 19 to 21 years. As per medical report, there was no mark of violence over the body of the victim.

¶24

A perusal of the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., it is revealed that pursuant to their prolonged love relationship, they eloped voluntarily and moved to Dibrugarh. From Dibrugarh, they moved to Silchar and then to Badarpur. They, thereafter, stayed together for about five months as husband and wife and solemnised marriage at a temple in Tripura.

¶25

The accused petitioner is stated to be aged about 23 years.

¶26

Upon consideration of the above materials on the case record, this Court is of the opinion that in the backdrop of facts and evidence collected during investigation, further continuation of detention of the accused for the purpose of trial may not be required.

¶27

Accordingly, it is provided that the accused petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail of Rs. 30,000/- (Thirty Thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Dhemaji subject to the following conditions-

¶28

Page No.# 4/4

¶29

(i) That the accused petitioner shall continue to appear before the learned trial court on all dates to be fixed from time to time till the case is disposed of; and

¶30

(ii) That 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 the Court.

¶31

This disposes of the bail application.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Raju Debnath v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Debnath v. the State of Assam and Anr.

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

Md. Zenaid Uddin Ahmed @ Md. Zunaid Uddin Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Papu Giri Vs the State of Assam

Faizul Islam Vs the State of Assam

Subodh Kumar Vs the State of Assam

Ratna Ram and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Md. Shariful Islam Vs the State of Assam