Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 14008 (GAU)

MONUJ DAS v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR

Bail Appln./1912/2025 · 2025-07-22

Mridul Kumar Kalita

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010125372025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1912/2025 MONUJ DAS S/O- BROJEN DAS. R/O- VILL.- 2 NO. BANTO, P.S.- AND P.O.- DHAKUAKHANA, DIST.- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:KRISHNA CHAMUA. S/O- HITESWAR CHAMUA. R/O- VILL.- NO.1 BANTO GAON P.S.- AND P.O.- DHAKUAKHANA DIST.- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-78705 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A KHANIKAR, R L CHUTIA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ (AMICUS CURIAE, R2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 23.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. A. Khanikar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also Page No.# 2/4 heard Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for respondent No.1 as well as Mr. S. Nawaz, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent No.2. 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Monuj Das, who has been detained behind the bars since 19.05.2025 (for the last 64 days) in connection with Dhakuakhana PS Case No. 43/2025 under Section 87 of BNS, R/W Section 6 of POCSO Act and Section 64(2)(m) of BNS. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 17.05.2025 the father of the victim girl had lodged an FIR before the officer in-charge of Dhakuakhana police station, inter alia, alleging that the minor daughter of the informant was taken away by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR does not indict any offence under the POCSO Act. In fact, Section 6 of POCSO has been added to this case later on. He further submits that the petitioner was in romantic relationship with the victim girl and both of them were of young age. The petitioner is of 18 years of age whereas the victim girl is 17 years of age. He further submits that the petitioner has been detained behind the bars for last 65 days and considering the period of detention, his application for bail may be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary of Dhakuakhana PS Case No. 43/2025 and submitted that in her statement under Section 183 of BNS, the victim girl has submitted that she was subjected to physical relationship by the Page No.# 3/4 petitioner as a result of which she became pregnant. 6. Learned Amicus curiae appearing for the respondent No.2 has submitted that in this case though the offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act appears to have been committed, however, this is a case of romantic relationship between two adult persons. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the case diary of Dhakuakhana PS Case No. 43/2025 and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of BNSS which shows that there was a relationship between the petitioner and her. In any event of the matter, the petitioner has been detained behind the bar for last 64 days and considering the progress made in the investigation as well as period of detention undergone by the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that further custodial detention of the petitioner may not be necessary for fair completion of the investigation if he co-operate in the investigation. 8. For the aforesaid reason, the above named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs.30,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur with following conditions: (i) the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Police Officer as and when called for and shall co-operate with the investigation; and (ii) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to the informant or to any other person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Investigating Officer or to any Court. Page No.# 4/4 9. With the above observations, this bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant