Allowed

Himangshu Baishya and Anr. v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC19 Jan 2025AB/3143/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted pre-arrest bail to the first petitioner, finding no prima facie material in the case diary against him, while refusing the same for the second petitioner based on prima facie evidence of involvement in kidnapping.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted to Applicant No. 1 on execution of bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of like amount, subject to conditions regarding cooperation and not leaving jurisdiction.

Himangshu Baishya and Anr. Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Gauhati HC (2025)

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010253532024

2025:GAU-AS:482

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

¶5

Case No. : AB/3143/2024

¶6

HIMANGSHU BAISHYA AND ANR. S/O LATE SUBAL BAISHYA R/O VILL- KUSHLAYGURI, P.S. MANIKPUR, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM

¶7

2: PRATIMA BAISHYA W/O SRI HIMANGSHU BAISHYA R/O VILL- KUSHLAYGURI P.S. MANIKPUR DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSA

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

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

¶10

2:ANJANA BAISHYA S/O SRI DHIREN RAY R/O NO. 1 FAGUNAGAON P.S. BIJNI DIST. CHIRANG BTR ASSAM PH. NO.9707921118

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M KHAN, MS J AKTAR,MR A K DAS

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS P DAS, Amicus Curiae(R-2)

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Date : 20.01.2025

¶17

Heard Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondents and Ms. P. Das, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No.2

¶18

This application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha (BNSS),2023 is preferred by applicant, namely, Shri Himangshu Baishya and Pratima Baishya who have been apprehending arrest in connection with Manikpur P.S. Case No.148/2024, under Section 81/351(2)/64/137(2)/61(2) of BNSS read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

¶19

It is to be noted here that, above noted case has been registered on the basis of FIR lodged by one Anjana Baishya, on 09.11.2024. The essence of allegation, in the FIR against the present applicants are that they have instigated Abhijit Baishya, the main accused, to kidnap the minor daughter of the informant on 09.11.2024, and consequently, Abhijit Baishya had kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant and taken her to West Bengal and then to Hyderabad and there he committed rape upon her.

¶20

Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant No.1, and applicant No.2, are the brother-in-law and sister of the accused No.1, and they resides in a different place and no one of them are involved with the offence alleged in the crime and that they are ready to cooperate with the investigating agency and therefore, it is prayed for allowing the petition.

¶21

On the other hand, Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, has produced the case diary before this Court and referring to the

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

statement of the victim girl recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS, submits that there are sufficient materials against the applicant No.2, Pratima Baishya. However, Mr. Sharma fairly submits that there is no materials against the applicant No.1, Shri Himangshu Baishya and considering the materials connected against the applicant No.2, Pratima Baishya, Mr. Sharma submits that the prayer in respect of the applicant No.2, Pratima Baishya may be rejected at this stage.

¶24

Ms. P. Das, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No.2 also submits that the FIR, which is enclosed with the petition as Annexure No.1, clearly indicates the role being played by the applicant Nos. 1 and 2, and, therefore she has opposed the petition.

¶25

Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the case diary with the assistance of Mr. Sharma, learned Additional P.P.

¶26

The case diary, specially the statement of the victim girl recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS indicates prima facie materials about the involvement of the applicant No.2, with the offence of kidnapping of the victim girl. However, there appears to be no material against the applicant No.1, Shri Himangshu Baishya, in the case diary.

¶27

Thus, considering the submission of learned advocates of both the parties and also considering the materials collected so far in the case diary, this Court is inclined to allow the application so far it relates to applicant No.1, Shri Himangshu Baishya, is concerned.

¶28

Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the applicant

¶29

Page No.# 4/4

¶30

No.1, Shri Himangshu Baishya in connection with Manikpur P.S. Case No. 148/2024, under Section 81/351(2)/64/137(2)/61(2) of BNSS read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, he shall be released on pre-arrest bail on his executing a bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. The above privilege is, however, subject to the following conditions:-

¶31

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required;

¶32

(ii) The applicant shall not make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, directly or indirectly, acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and

¶33

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned C.J.M., Bongaigaon, without prior permission.

¶34

However, considering the materials available on the record, and the case diary, the prayer, so far it relates to applicant No.2, Pratima Baishya is concerned, stands disposed of.

¶35

Case diary be returned.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Himangshu Baishya and Anr. v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himangshu Baishya and Anr. 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

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sayad Jamal @ Surajmal @ Saidur Ali and 4 Ors. F

Himakshi Choudhury Vs Bhrigujit Choudhury (Sonti)

Hiranya Prova Aideo Vs Durga Das Banerjee and 3 Ors.

MD Nijam Uddin Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Shahidul Hoque Vs the State of Assam

Khushket Ali Vs the State of Assam and Anr.