Allowed

Lalit Chetia v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC5 Aug 2022I.A.(Crl.)/325/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted interim bail to two applicants facing POCSO conviction, allowing them to remain on bail with PR and surety bonds of Rs. 50,000 each while appeals are pending, subject to reporting and non-interaction conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicants granted bail pending appeal on furnishing PR and surety bonds of Rs. 50,000 each, conditioned on reporting to police and not contacting victim.

Lalit Chetia Vs the State of Assam and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010131332022

¶3

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

¶4

: I.A.(Crl.)/328/2022 in Crl.A./128/2022

¶5

SIBAJIT SAIKIA

¶6

S/O SUREN SAIKIA R/O UPPER NAZIRA CHANBECHA GAON P.S NAZIRA DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY THE PP ASSAM

¶9

2:MONJU MOUT

¶10

W/O SHRI LILESWAR MOUT R/O CHANBECHA MOUT GOAN P.S NAZIRA DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM

¶11

-----------Advocate for : MR. B M CHOUDHURY Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.

¶12

I.A.(Crl.)/325/2022 in Crl.A./127/2022

¶13

LALIT CHETIA S/O SHRI MAHENDRA CHETIA RESIDENT OF UPPER NAZIRA CHANBECHA GAON PS NAZIRA, DIST SIVASAGAR, ASSAM

¶14

VERSUS

¶15

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM 2:SMTI MONJU MOUT,W/O SHRI LILESWAR MOUT

¶16

Page No.# 2/4

¶17

RESIDENT OF CHANBECHA GAON, PS NAZIRA DIST SIVASAGAR, ASSAM

¶18

-----------Advocate for : MR. A K BHUYAN Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

ORDER

Date : 5.8.2022

(N.KOTISWAR SINGH,J)

Heard Mr. A. K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the applicant in I.A.(Crl) 325/2022 and Mr. B. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the applicant in IA (Crl) 328/2022.

¶24

Both these applications are taken up together as these arise out of the same conviction order and sentence vide judgment dated 30.5.2022 passed in Special (POSCO) Case No.32/2018 by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Sivasagar and since learned counsel for both the applicants have taken similar and identical pleas.

¶25

Learned counsel for the applicants have sought to bring certain aspects which according to the applicants would render the conviction and sentence untenable.

¶26

Firstly, it has been submitted that not only there were two FIRs lodged in connection with the same incident which apparently do not portray the same picture.

¶27

Further, the victim herself also had given two statements before the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C which are also not consistent with each other.

¶28

Page No.# 3/4

¶29

Apart from that there are a series of inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements of the parents and the informant which would render the prosecution case wholly unreliable.

¶30

On the other hand, Ms. Jahan, learned Addl. P.P. submits that even if there are certain inconsistencies as submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants, as far as the victim is concerned, she had remained more or less consistent in her allegation against the applicants.

¶31

We have given our anxious thought on the submissions made on behalf of the applicants as well as the State. We have gone through the memo of appeals preferred. We have also gone through the deposition made by the victim girl before the learned trial court, her cross-examination and also her statements recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate, which are part of the Memo of appeal.

¶32

We have also taken into the consideration of the submission advanced that the applicants had been allowed to remain on bail throughout the trial.

¶33

Taking a holistic view of the matter for the limited purpose of consideration of bail, and the submission advanced on behalf of the applicants that there are series of consistencies in the evidence of prosecutrix as well as other prosecution witnesses, we are of the view that pending consideration of the appeal, the applicants may be given the benefit of remaining on bail during the pendency of the appeals preferred by the applicants.

¶34

We have deliberately refrained from making detail observations after considering the various contentions and submissions made by the applicants so as not to cause any prejudice to either of the parties at the time of final hearing.

¶35

Page No.# 4/4

¶36

Accordingly, we allow both these applications. The applicants will be allowed to remain on bail during the pendency of the appeals on each of them furnishing PR bonds as well as surety bonds of Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge cum Special Judge (POCSO), Sivasagar with the further condition that they shall not leave station without informing the concerned police station and by giving their mobile numbers or contact numbers and they shall report to the police station as and when directed to do so, with the further condition not to interact with or come near to the victim prosecutrix.

¶37

We are also making it very clear that the applicants shall not make any attempt whatsoever to contact the victim either directly or indirectly through any means including social media etc, violation of which would entail cancellation of this bail order passed in their favour.

¶38

Both these I.A. are accordingly disposed of.

¶39

JUDGE JUDGE

¶40

Comparing Assistant

Lalit Chetia v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalit Chetia 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Asadul Ali Vs the State of Assam

Maleka Begum @ Maleka Khatun Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Hirendra Biswas Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Lakhindra Sureng @ Bhaya Vs the State of Assam

Smti Rumi Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Sibajit Saikia Vs the State of Assam and Anr.