Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010191782024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2515/2024 MANOJ KR NATH @ MANOJ NATH S/O DEEPAK NATH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KARIPARA (NIMNA BAGUAN) PS MATIA, DIST GOALPARA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP ASSAM 2:LABITA NATH W/O SANJIB NATH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KARIPARA (NIMNA BAGUAN) PS MATIA DIST GOALPARA ASSAM 78212 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M HOQUE, MR Z HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. N K KALITA, AMICUS CURIAE (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 09-01-2025 Heard Mr. M. Hoque, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of Page No.# 2/3 State respondent no. 1 and Mr. N.K. Kalita, the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent no. 2. 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner in connection with Matia P.S. Case No. 40/2024 u/s 509/506 IPC R/W Section 15 POCSO Act R/W-Section 67 IT Act. 3. Heard the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides. The Case Diary is received and perused the same. 4. Mr. Hoque, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted in this regard that the accused and the victim had love affair but after some dispute between the parties a false and concocted case is brought against him. He further submitted that the case is registered u/s 15 of the POCSO Act wherein for the first offence the punishment prescribed is only a fine of rupees not less than 5,000/-. Further it is submitted that except the Section 67 of the IT Act the others sections are bailable in nature. Further it is submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the Investigating Officer for further investigation if he is granted a privilege of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly it is submitted that it is a fit case wherein the accused-petitioner may be granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. 6. Mr. Baruah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that from the materials available in the Case Diary, it is seen that the accused and the victim had a love affair but he started to blackmailing and threatening her when she refused to indulge herself with physical activities with the accused-petitioner. He further submitted that the present petitioner also took some photographs of the private parts of the victim and which were made Page No.# 3/3 viral in the social media and accordingly he submitted that it is not at all a fit case to grant with the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present petitioner. 7. Mr. Kalita, the learned Amicus Curiae also submitted in this regard that the victim is a minor girl of 16 years at the relevant time of incident and from the plain reading of the FIR itself it is seen that Section 11 of the POCSO is attracted but the case is registered u/s 15 of the POCSO Act. Further it is submitted that as the petitioner is repeatedly harassing the victim also attracts the second category of Section 15 wherein the punishment is of three years. Apart from that there is also threatening on the part of the accused-petitioner to destroy the life of the victim as well as the other family members of the victim. Accordingly, Mr. Kalita also raised objection in granting the accused/petitioner with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. 8. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, perused the case records and Case Diary. It is a fact that the accused and the victim had love affairs but he started blackmailing her and threatening her only when she refused to have physical relationship with the accused/petitioner. From the plain reading of the FIR, it is seen that there are allegation of blackmailing on the part of the accused to destroy the life of the victim by throwing acid on her and otherwise also he had viral the photographs of the private parts of the victim girl. 9. Considering this aspect of the case as well as the nature of allegation, I find that this is not a fit case wherein the privilege of pre-arrest bail can be extended to the present petitioner and accordingly, the same stands rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant