Rhitom Sonowal And Anr vs State Of Assam

The Court proceedings have been conducted through Video-Conference due to Covid-19 pandemic.

This is an application made under Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking pre-arrest bail by the petitioners, namely, 1. Rhitom Sonowal and 2. Manzoor Elahi

Choudhury, apprehending arrest in connection with Fatasil Ambari Police Station Case No. 96 of 2021, registered under Sections 376(D)/506 of the

IPC, read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

Heard Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Bidyut Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

This is second pre-arrest bail application of the petitioners. Their first such application was rejected vide order, dated 22-03-2021, passed in AB No.

701/2021.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted, referring to the annexure at page 20 and 21 as well as at page 26 and 28 that the

victim/informant has given two different age at two different times. In the FIR registered as Fatasil Ambari Police Station Case No. 96 of 2021, under

Sections 376(D)/506 of the IPC, read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, the victim has given her age as 16 years and that too on being specifically

asked by the Investigating Police Officer, as reflected in the annexure, at page 21. However, at page 28, another FIR, dated 29-10-2019, the

victim/informant has indicated her age to be 18 years, just below her signature as informant.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mannan, has submitted that a person, who was 18 years of age in the year 2019, cannot be younger by 2

years in the year 2021 and, therefore, the victim was not a minor at the relevant point of time to attract the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO

Act. He has further submitted that such statement in the FIR, as indicated above, made the victim most unreliable person.

Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted that in the statement, recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., the victim has

implicated both the petitioners with the commission of alleged offences against her. However, on examination of the entire materials including the

statement of the victim, as indicated above, this Court is of the view that the allegation of the petitioner is not very convincing and taken together with

the issue of her age, as indicated above, this Court is inclined to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to both the petitioners. It is made clear that the

observations made above are limited to this bail application only.

In view of above, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the petitioners above named, in connection with the case aforementioned, they shall be

released on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- each, with a suitable surety each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of arresting authority.

The direction for pre-arrest bail is subject to the conditions that the petitioners:

(a) shall appear before the Investigating Police Officer of concerned Police Station, within seven days from today and shall co-operate with the

investigation;

(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.

The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of accordingly.

Return the case diary.