SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sonauddin vs The State Of Assam on 23 April, 2020

Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010297022019

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : AB 4355/2019

1:SONAUDDIN
S/O- MD. JAMALUDDIN, R/O- NO.2 DAKHIN RANGAPANI, P.S- BOKO, DIST-
KAMRUP, PIN- 781135, ASSAM

VERSUS

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

Counsel for respondent : Mr. NJ Dutta,

Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam

BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJAI LAMBA

23.04.2020

Sonauddin has filed this application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure in Boko PS Case No.825/2019 (G.R. No.2268(K)/2019) registered under
Section 354 IPC read with Section 67 B of IT Act, 2000 and Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012.

2. The Court proceedings have been conducted by means of creating a Virtual Court with
the help of technology, so as to maintain distance between the staff, Advocates and the
Presiding Judge.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has not appeared.

4. Order dated 11.2.2020 reads as under;

Page No.# 2/2

“Heard Mr. A. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.K.
Kalita, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State. The case
diary produced is perused.

This is the second pre-arrest bail application by the accused-petitioner.
His first such application was rejected vide order, dated 05-11-2019, passed
in AB No.3460/2019, after perusal of the materials in the case diary. Now, the
learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Goyal, has submitted that the mobile
phone, allegedly used to take the nude photograph and to circulate the
same, was not of the petitioner, therefore, he is entitled to the privilege of
pre-arrest bail.

On examination of the case diary it is found that there is no
investigation with regard to ascertaining the ownership of the seized mobile
phone.

From the materials available in the case diary as of now, it cannot be
ascertained as to who owns the mobile phone involved in this case.

Therefore, return the case diary to the Investigating Police Officer for
updating the investigation of the case in respect of the ownership of the
mobile phone involved in this case and to re-submit the same thereafter.

List the matter on 26-02-2020.”

5. I hereby direct the prosecution to come with specific instructions/materials/evidence
in regard to ownership of the mobile from which nude pictures were taken and circulated.
Possession of the mobile at the time of committing the offending act is a relevant fact to be
taken into consideration while deciding this application for anticipatory bail.

6. List on 28.4.2020.

7. Let copy of this order be provided under the signature of the Court Master.

CHIEF JUSTICE

Comparing Assistant

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation