Page No.# 1/2
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB 561/2020
S/O LATE KALIPADA SAHA, R/O MEDHIPARA, WARD NO. 2,
P.O. AND P.S.-BASUGAON, DIST-CHIRANG, ASSAM, PIN-783372
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. P.B. Mazumder.
Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. N.J. Dutta, Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJAI LAMBA
Date : 17-02-2020
Shri Bidyut Saha, aged about 50 years, has preferred this second application
under Section 438 of the Cr.PC for bail in Basugaon Police Station Case No.65/2019 under
Section 354 of the IPC read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
2. As per the accusations in the FIR at issue, the victim, a student of Class-VIII, was
sexually victimized by the applicant. Name of the applicant finds mention in the FIR itself.
3. Learned counsel for the prosecution has pointed out that the applicant earlier
applied for anticipatory bail vide the A.B. No.3598/2019 (Bidyut Saha -Vs- State of Assam).
The said application was dismissed by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide the order dated
Page No.# 2/2
4. Order dated 11.11.2019 is available on record as Annexure-4. I, however, find that
the said case was filed through another counsel.
5. Be that as it may, order dated 11.11.2019 reads as under:-
“Heard Shri S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, who is praying
for pre-arrest by filing this application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection
with Basugaon P.S. Case No.65/2019 under Section 354 IPC read with Section 8 of
the POCSO Act.
Shri Ahmed, learned counsel, submits that the allegations are absolutely
incorrect and exaggerated.
On the other hand, by furnishing the Case Diary, the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor submits that the materials would suggest that the allegations are
consistent with the statements of the alleged victim. Attention of this Court is also
drawn to the medical report, according to which, the age of the victim is between 12
to 14 years.
Considering the nature of the allegations, age of the victim as well as that
of the petitioner, who is 55 years and also a neighbor, the instant application is
rejected at this stage.”
6. Considering the fact that a girl aged about 12 to 14 years was sexually victimized
by the applicant and to that effect name of the accused finds mention in the FIR, as also in
the statement of the victim, I find no reason to grant bail to the applicant.
7. I further find that there has been no change in circumstance since 11.11.2019 so
as to warrant grant of bail to the applicant. The only circumstance that has changed is the
counsel through whom the application has been filed.
8. Be that as it may, the application is dismissed.