Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 22319 (GAU)

MOSTAFIZUR RAHMAN v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR

AB/3428/2024 · 2025-03-06

Susmita Phukan Khaund

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010277172024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/3428/2024 MOSTAFIZUR RAHMAN S/O MONTAJ SHEIKH, R/O VILL- KOLABARI, P.O.-PATAKATA, P.S.-SOUTH SALMARA, DIST-SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-783127 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:ABU BOKKAR SIDDIK S/O ABDUL MOZID VILL- SATDUBI BEPARIPARA P.S.-SOUTH SALMARA DIST-SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM PIN-78312 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M Z SHAH, MD P RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. SURAJIT DAS,AMICUS CURIAE, (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 07.03.2025 Heard Mr. M.Z.Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. N.Das, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent No.1. Also heard Page No.# 2/3 learned Counsel, Mr. S.Das for the respondent No.2. The petitioner ‘X’ has filed this application under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer for pre-arrest bail as charge-sheet has been laid against him in connection with Special (P) Case No. 216/2024 arising out of South Salmara P,.S.Case No. 32/2023, under Sections 9/10/11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 read with Sections 6/17 of the POCSO Act. The allegation against the petitioner is that he solemnised marriage with a girl who was below 18 years of age. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. It is submitted at the Bar that the petitioner is booked in a serious offence. The petitioner was also a young lad at the time of his marriage. He is only 22 years old at present. The petitioner has solemnised his marriage with the victim and they are parents of a child at present. It is submitted on the behalf of the petitioner that he will co-operate with the trial and he will abide by any stringent bail conditions if imposed upon him. It appears that anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, in the event of his arrest, the petitioner ‘X’ shall be enlarged on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- with a suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court who may also impose conditions to secure the attendance of the petitioner. The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Page No.# 3/3 Comparing Assistant