Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1207 (GAU)

Rajab Ali v. State of Assam

2019-11-08

AJAI LAMBA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ajai Lamba, J. 1. Rajab Ali, Monowar Hussain and Rezzak Ali have preferred this application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in Barpeta P.S. Case No. 1960/2019 (G.R. No. 4775/19) under Section 147/148/341/307/326/ 325/427/382 I.P.C. 2. Contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the story brought out by virtue of FIR at issue Barpeta P.S. Case No. 1960/2019 (supra) is improbable. The facts required to be considered are that Barpeta P.S. Case No. 1957/2019 was registered for commission of offence under Section 365/511/34 IPC read with Section 8 of POCSO Act in regard to the incident that took place at 7 A.M. on 15.09.2019. The said FIR has been placed on record at Annexure-6. 3. Perusal of the FIR indicates that an accusation was made against Talebar Sikdar to the effect that daughter of the informant (Rajab Ali) while going to the house of her uncle was victimized. Her modesty was outraged by Talebar Sikdar and his associates. It has further been brought out from the FIR that accused person tried to escape but he fell down and the public caught him in the act. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel that people at the spot gave beating to Talebar Sikdar on account of the incident, as narrated in the FIR. It has been contended that in counter blast to Case No. 1957/2019 (supra) Barpeta P.S. Case No. 1960/2019 (supra) has been registered. It has been pleaded that it is most improbable that victim of Barpeta P.S. Case No. 1960/2019 (supra), namely Talebar Sikdar was returning home along with Rs. 80,000/- after selling biscuit and was attacked at 8:30 AM. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn attention of the Court towards order dated 5th November, 2019 rendered by the Bail Court/Sessions Court, placed on record as Annexure-5. It has been brought out that no reason for rejection of the bail has been given. It has been pleaded that the issue of bail in the case at hand can only be considered in conjunction with the accusation made in Barpeta P.S. Case No. 1957/2019. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, I am of the considered view that a reasonable case for bail has been made out on behalf of the applicants. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, I am of the considered view that a reasonable case for bail has been made out on behalf of the applicants. Barpeta P.S. Case No. 1957/2019 with an accusation of outraging the modesty filed by the complainant is earlier in time and indicates the incident at 7 A.M. whereas in the FIR at issue, namely Barpeta P.S. Case No. 1960/2019 (supra), the incident is said to have taken place at 8.30 A.M. The probability of FIR 1960/2019 (supra) being registered in counter blast cannot be ruled out at this stage. Further the injuries received by the victim might have been caused by the public, as suggested on behalf of the applicant. 7. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed. 8. Accordingly, the accused-applicants named above, shall be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with a suitable surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta. 9. The direction for bail is further subject to the conditions that the accused-applicants: (a) shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta, without prior written permission from him. (b) shall not hamper with the investigation, or tamper with the evidence of the case. (c) 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 10. It is made clear that the facts have been considered only for the purpose of considering the issue of bail and be not construed as finding of facts. 11. The application is allowed in the above noted terms.