Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 15220 (GAU)

PUNAKANTA SONOWAL @ PRANAB SONOWAL v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

AB/1510/2025 · 2025-09-01

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010142992025 2025:GAU-AS:11844 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1510/2025 PUNAKANTA SONOWAL @ PRANAB SONOWAL S/O- BISHNU SONOWAL. R/O- JONAKI NO.1, BORBILL GAON, P.O.- KHAMTI GHAT, P.S.- BARBARUAH, DIST.- DIBRUGARH, PIN-786003 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R A CHOUDHURY, MR. R A MAZUMDER Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 02.09.2025 Heard Mr. R.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Page No.# 2/3 Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail in respect of the accused/petitioner namely Punakanta Sonowal @ Pranab Sonowal, in connection with PRC Case No. 119/2025 under Section 64 of BNS pending before the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dibrugarh, arising out of Barbaruah PS Case No. 97/2024 (GR No. 1189/2024) 3. The allegations against the petitioner is that that one Ms. Janmoni Sonowal lodged an Ejahar on 17-10-2024 alleging, inter alia, that on 13-10-2024, at about 09.30 AM, the accused/petitioner came to her house when no was present there and committed rape upon her. It was also alleged that the accused threatened to kill her if she disclose about the incident to anyone. On receipt of Ejahar, the Barbaruah P.S. Case No. 97/2024, dated 17-10-2024, was registered U/S 64 of BNS (GR Case No.1189/2024). 4. The learned counsel for the accused/petitioner submits that he is not on the merits of the case but only seeks protection till his appearance before the learned Trial Court. Since the case is Sessions triable and the case is pending for committal before the learned Magistrate, in the event of his appearance before the Magistrate, he would be denied the privilege of bail. 5. Having regard to the above, it is provided that the accused/petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate within a period of 14 days from today, whereafter complying with the provisions of law, the case shall be committed to the Court of Sessions as expeditiously as possible. Page No.# 3/3 6. Upon such committal, the accused may apply for regular bail before the learned Trial Court which shall be considered and disposed of as per law. Until such time, the petitioner in the event of his arrest shall be released on bail of Rs. 20,000/- with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. 7. This interim protection shall be in force up to the date of receipt of the record by the Sessions upon committal by the Magistrate concerned. 8. The Anticipatory Bail stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant