Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 710 (GAU)

Subham Jain v. State of Assam

2019-06-10

AJIT BORTHAKUR

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ajit Borthakur, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Mitra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. By this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. the petitioner, namely, Subham Jain has prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Barpeta PS Case No. 472 of 2018 under Section 354-D/500/384/506 of the IPC and 67A of the IT Act. 3. Case diary, as called for, is placed before the Court. 4. Mr. S. Mitra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner and the alleged victim girl had a long love affair and they used to meet at different places of the State. Mr. Mitra further submits that the informant tried to rebut their deep relationship that had developed between them during the years of their close intimacy and ultimately the FIR came to be lodged by her father. 5. Mr. H. Sharma, learned Addl. P.P. Assam, submits that the incident had crept in course of the relationship between the informants daughter and the petitioner that continued from 2018 and the victim was a major on the date of the alleged occurrence. Mr. Sharma further submits that from the various facts narrated in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. it appears that the relationship between them developed from the year 2015 and it continued till the victim rejected the petitioner and ultimately, the FIR came to be lodged by her guardian. 6. The allegation against the petitioner is that he posted some indecent photograph of the petitioner that went viral in the social media, namely, instagram and facebook through the petitioners mobile phone. 7. From the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. it appears that there is prima facie incriminating material against the petitioner. However, on consideration of the evidence, as a whole, so far collected by the I.O. this Court finds that custodial interrogation of the petitioner in the interest of investigation is not warranted. 8. Therefore, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, namely, Subham Jain, he shall be released on pre-arrest bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 8. Therefore, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, namely, Subham Jain, he shall be released on pre-arrest bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject, of course, to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 7 days. (ii) That the petitioner 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. (iii) That the petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence, commission of which he is accused, or suspected. Return the case diary. 9. With the above directions, the bail application stands disposed of.