Disposed¶24

Ariful Islam v. The State of Ap

Gauhati HC1 May 2025Crl.Petn./85/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Modification of bail condition; local surety requirement waived; non-resident accused unable to furnish Arunachal Pradesh surety; release on bail without local surety in terms of bail order dated 18.01.2025; default bail; continued incarceration despite bail infringes Article 21; Section 137 BNS; Section 4 POCSO Act, 2012; ITA WPS P.S. Case No. 57/2024; BA No. 47/2025; Special Judge (POCSO) Yupia; Ariful Islam v. The State of AP; Crl.Petn./85/2025; Gauhati High Court, Itanagar Bench; Justice Arun Dev Choudhury.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on bail without insisting on a local surety, in terms of the Special Court's bail order dated 18.01.2025; the criminal petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation. ¶24

Ariful Islam Vs The State of Ap — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Gauhati HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the bail condition requiring the petitioner to furnish two sureties, one of whom must be from the State of Arunachal Pradesh, should be relaxed/modified, given that the petitioner is not a resident of Arunachal Pradesh and remains in custody despite being granted default bail because he cannot secure a local surety.

¶17

Court's answer

Where a person granted default bail continues in custody solely because, not being a local person, he cannot furnish a local surety, insistence on such a condition infringes the right granted to him under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

On the facts, the petitioner is to be released on bail without insisting on a local surety, in terms of the Special Court's bail order dated 18.01.2025.

¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court, Itanagar Bench (Crl.Petn./85/2025, decided 02.05.2025, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Dev Choudhury): The petitioner, uncle of the alleged accused and a permanent resident of Lakhimpur District, Assam, was granted default bail on 18.01.2025 by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Yupia in BA No. 47/2025 arising out of ITA WPS P.S. Case No. 57/2024 (Section 137 of BNS read with Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012), subject to furnishing two sureties, one of which was required to be from Arunachal Pradesh. Being a non-resident of Arunachal Pradesh, he could not procure a local surety and remained in jail custody from his arrest on 19.10.2024 despite the bail order. Held that insistence on a local surety in these circumstances infringes the petitioner's right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India; the Court directed his release on bail without insisting on a local surety, in terms of the Special Court's bail order dated 18.01.2025, and disposed of the criminal petition.

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC040006602025

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Crl.Petn./85/2025

¶5

Ariful Islam

¶6

Uncle of the alleged accused, presently residing at Nyorch, PO and PS Doimukh, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh and permanent resident of Fatehpur, Lakhimpur District, Assam.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of AP represented by the PP of AP

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mitem Ratan, Gujusa Yobin,Bate Joel Koyu

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP,

¶11

-BEFORE

¶12

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶13

02.05.2025

¶14

Heard Mr. M. Ratan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. L. Hage, learned Addl. PP for the State.

¶15

2. The present application is filed for modification of bail condition

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

imposed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Yupia in BA No. 47/2025 in connection with ITA WPS P.S. Case No. 57/2024, whereby a condition was imposed that the petitioner shall furnish two sureties, out of which one of the sureties shall be from State of Arunachal Pradesh inasmuch as, it is the case of the petitioner that he is not a resident of State of Arunachal Pradesh and therefore, he is not in a position to fulfil such a condition. Accordingly, though the petitioner has been granted bail, the petitioner is still in jail since 19.10.2024.

¶18

3. It is seen that the petitioner was arrested on 19.10.2024, in connection with ITA WPS P.S. Case No. 57/2024 under Section 137 of BNS and read with Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012. It was alleged in the FIR that on 11.10.2024 at midnight, the accused had kidnapped the daughter of the informant and had sexual relationship with her and the girl is stated to be aged about 17 years old.

¶19

4. Be that, as it may, during the statutory period when the investigating authority could not file the Charge-Sheet/ Final Form, the petitioner was granted default bail by order dated 18.01.2025 by the learned Special Judge (POCSO) at Yupia. However, till date, the petitioner is in jail custody as he could not fulfil the condition of a local surety as imposed in the bail order dated 18.01.2025. It is seen that the bail order was passed way back on 18.01.2025 and till date, the petitioner is still languishing in the jail custody as he could not furnish a local surety.

¶20

5. It would be a travesty of justice, if the petitioner is unable to secure

¶21

Page No.# 3/3

¶22

benefits of bail order for his inability to furnish a local surety. In the considered opinion of this Court such condition shall infringe the right of the petitioner granted under Article 21 of the Constitution of India who continues to be in custody when he was granted default bail and he being not a local person could not submit a local surety.

¶23

6. Having considered the circumstances and in the given facts of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner be released on bail without insisting on a local surety in terms of the Special Court’s bail order dated 18.01.2025.

¶24

7. With the aforesaid observation, this criminal petition stands disposed of.

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

Comparing Assistant

Ariful Islam v. The State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ariful Islam v. The State of Ap

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

Raj Megu Vs The State of Ap and Anr.

Yangbiu Takik and Anr. Vs The State of Ap

Kipa Nargish Charu and 2 Ors. Vs The State of Ap

Miss Leena Tallang Vs The State of Ap and Anr.

Takot Taggu Vs The State of Ap and Anr.

Tajen Yorpen and Anr. Vs The State of Ap