Samsul Hoque and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Heard Mr. M Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M P Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the opposite party No. 1. Also heard Ms. M K Brown, learned Amicus Curiae for the informant/opposite party No. 2.

¶23

2. The petitioners, namely, (1) Samsul Hoque, son of Samar Ali, (2) Atikul Islam , son of Umed Ali and (3) Abdul Rashid, son of Jain Uddin, all are resident of Village No. 2 Sonapur, P.S. Bihpuria, District-Lakhimpur, have filed this application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, seeking prearrest bail apprehending their arrest in Bihpuria P.S. Case No. 126/2024 registered under Sections 61(2)/351(2)/351(3) BNS read with Sections 12/14/15 POCSO Act and read with Section 67B of I.T. Act.

¶24

3. As per the FIR dated 12.08.2024 lodged by the informant/opposite party No. 2 before the Officer-in-Charge of Bihpuria Police Station, the case is that the FIR named accused person No. 1, Nasir Uddin, son of Matiur Rahman used to disturb her minor daughter of 16 years 5 months old since long. In the FIR, it is stated that whenever her daughter used to go to school or whenever the FIR named accused person No. 1 used to meet her, he used to pass bad remarks and used to indicate her with obscene signs. When the said minor victim girl informed the informant, she went to the house of

¶25

Page No.# 3/5

¶26

the accused person No. 1 and asked him to restrain himself and to remain away from all such acts but instead of listening to the complaint made by her, the said accused person No. 1 with the help of the other accused persons of the case continued to disturb her minor daughter and further, the accused person No. 1 with the help of the accused person No. 2 used to call her via video calls and threatened her and also compelled her to become nude which the accused persons illegally recorded in their mobile phones. The said video recording of the obscene scene of her minor daughter was subsequently made viral by the FIR named accused persons of the case. Later, the FIR named accused person Nos. 3, 4 and 5, i.e., the present petitioners approached the informant with a proposal of marriage of her daughter with the accused person No. 1. Considering the victim to be a minor, such proposal of the petitioners was rejected.

¶27

4. In the said FIR dated 12.08.2024, the informant also indicated that being rich they threatened the informant that by any means the minor victim girl will be taken away by them and shall be given in marriage with the accused person No. 1. As the obscene photographs of her minor daughter has been made viral in the social media for which the minor victim girl and her family members faced difficulties to be in touch with public, the minor victim girl tried to commit suicide by consuming poison and later, she was admitted at Bongalmara Civil Hospital, where she is undergoing treatment. All the FIR named accused persons of the case compelled the informant’s minor daughter to commit suicide. Accordingly, said FIR of the informant was registered as Bihpuria P.S. Case No. 126/2024 under Sections 61(2)/351(2)/351(3) BNS read with Sections 12/14/15 POCSO Act and read with Section 67B of I.T. Act against all the FIR named accused persons including the present petitioners of the case.

¶28

5. Perused the case diary placed before the Court by Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.

¶29

6. Mr. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they are no way connected with the case and only approached the informant for amicable settlement of the dispute involved in the case asking her to give marriage of her minor daughter/victim girl with the FIR named accused person No. 1.

¶30

7. Ms. Brown, learned Amicus Curiae for the informant/opposite party No. 2 submitted that the present petitioners by their own act forced the informant for child marriage of the victim girl with the FIR named accused person No. 1 of the case. As such, they are not entitled for any such prearrest bail in said Bihpuria P.S. Case No. 126/2024.

¶31

Page No.# 4/5

¶32

8. Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam from the case diary submitted that the victim girl implicated the FIR named accused person Nos. 1 & 2, more particularly, the FIR named accused person No. 1, who by threatening her, compelled her to become nude that was recorded by him in his mobile phone while making a video call in the mobile phone of the victim girl. The victim girl also indicated that the said accused person No. 1 threatened her that he shall kill the parents of the victim girl if she does not follow his commands.

¶33

9. From the case diary, Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam submitted that the FIR named accused person Nos. 1 & 2 are minor below 18 years of age and as they have been termed as Child in Conflict with Law, they were produced before the Juvenile Justice Board.

¶34

10. It is seen from the case diary that the Investigating Officer after recording the statement of the acquainted witnesses did not implicate the present petitioners in the case.

¶35

11. Considering the materials available in the case diary, this Court is of the view that custodial detention of the petitioners, named above, is not warranted to investigate the said Bihpuria P.S. Case No. 126/2024 . As such, this pre-arrest bail application of the petitioners is accepted.

¶36

12. Accordingly, in the event of arrest of the petitioners, namely, (1) Samsul Hoque, (2) Atikul Islam and (3) Abdul Rashid , in said Bihpuria P.S. Case No. 126/2024 registered under Sections 61(2)/351(2)/351(3) BNS read with Sections 12/14/15 POCSO Act and read with Section 67B of I.T. Act, they shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.30,000/- each, with 2 (two) local sureties each of the like amount, one of which shall be a Government employee, either State or Central Government, to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject to the conditions that the petitioners - (i) shall appear before the concerned Investigating Officer of said Bihpuria P.S. Case No. 126/2024 on or before 10.01.2025 and thereafter, as and when they are required for necessary investigation of the case; (ii) shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of said Bihpuria Police Station, without obtaining prior written permission from the concerned I/O of the case; (iii) shall not hamper with the investigation, or tamper with the evidence of the case and (iv) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and further (v) shall not harm/threat the victim girl, her parents or anyone from her family members by him or by anyone acting on his behalf, in any manner.

¶37

13. Violation of any of the aforesaid terms and conditions by either of the petitioners, (1)

¶38

Page No.# 5/5

¶39

Samsul Hoque, (2) Atikul Islam , and (3) Abdul Rashid , pre-arrest bail granted to them in said Bihpuria P.S. Case No. 126/2024 shall stand automatically vacated.

¶40

14. Accordingly, this pre-arrest bail application stands allowed to the extent above.

¶41

15. Return the case diary.

¶42

16. The Gauhati High Court Legal Services Authority shall pay the remuneration to Ms. M K Brown, learned Amicus Curiae, appointed by the Court vide order dated 06.12.2024 for assisting the Court, appearing for the informant/ respondent No.2, on raising a Bill.

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

Comparing Assistant

Samsul Hoque and 2 Ors. v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samsul Hoque and 2 Ors. v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Chandra Roy Vs the State of Assam

Jone Barman @ Bhakat Vs the State of Assam

Smti Rumila Daimari Vs the State of Assam

Chinmayee Devi Vs the Union of India

Tahej Ali Shikdar Vs the State of Assam

Md.Ismail Hussain and Anr. Vs the State of Assam