Zakaria Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Heard Mr S R Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam and Ms T Parashar, learned

¶15

Page No.# 2/3

¶16

counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2.

¶17

By this application, the petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Special (P) Case No. 53/2025, registered under Sections 366(A)/342/376(2)(n)/34 of the IPC, read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, pending before the Court of learned Special Judgecum-District and Sessions Judge, South Salmara, Mankachar.

¶18

The FIR dated 26.03.2024, filed by the father of the victim, reveals that on 24.03.2024, at about 01:30 pm, when the informant was not at home, the accused persons named in the said FIR, entered into the house of the victim and by inducing her, kidnapped and took her to some unknown destination. In the said FIR, however, the name of the petitioner was not mentioned.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no connection with the instant case, and that at no point of time, he received any notice from the Investigating Officer. He submits that all of a sudden, he received a summon from the Trial Court and on enquiry, he found out that he has been made an accused person in the aforementioned case and he has been shown as an absconder in the charge sheet. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is ready to face the trial of the said case.

¶20

Mr B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, submits that during the investigation, the involvement of the petitioner was found out, which again finds place in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC. He, as such, submits that the provisions under the POCSO Act was later added in the said case, by the Investigating Officer.

¶21

Ms Parashar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, submits that the victim was of 16 years of age and that the story projected by the victim is of a serious nature and as such, no bail should be granted to the petitioner.

¶22

Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that the petitioner was not arrayed as an accused person in the FIR lodged by

¶23

Page No.# 3/3

¶24

the father of the victim. Further, the FIR was lodged after two days of the occurrence. Further, on the submissions made by the petitioner that he would participate in the trial, this Court finds it fit that the petitioner be released on pre-arrest bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/-, with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority on the following conditions:-

¶25

i) That the petitioner would appear before the Investigating Officer, within a period of 10 days from the date of this order;

¶26

ii) the petitioner would appear before the Trial Court on every date fixed by the Court; and

¶27

iii) the petitioner would not approach the victim at any point of time.

¶28

The Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of.

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Comparing Assistant

Zakaria Ahmed v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zakaria Ahmed 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

Rehena Begum Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Sabanaz Barbhuiya Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Pankaj Kumar Jhunjhunwala Vs Kanhayalal Surana and Sons and Anr.

Marjan Begum Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Shri Manas Bortamuly Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Motaleb Miya Vs the State of Assam