SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sonauddin vs The State Of Assam on 28 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 applicant : None appeared.
Counsel for respondent : Mr. NJ Dutta,

Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam

BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJAI LAMBA

28.04.2020

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, yet again.

4. Mr. NJ Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instruction has informed the
Page No.# 2/2

Court that the mobile phone which was used for capturing nude photographs and circulating
the same belongs to the applicant, as per the investigation report.

5. Considering the fact that the applicant indulged in committing offence of serious
nature and prima facie evidence in that regard has been collected, I find no reason to grant
anticipatory bail in favour of the applicant. The applicant is required to join investigation in
the interest of fair and effective investigation.

6. I have also taken into account the fact that the applicant earlier filed an application for
identical relief vide AB No.3460/2019 which was dismissed vide order dated 5.11.2019.

7. It is evident that after dismissal of the earlier application, although, the applicant was
required to join investigation, however he chose to remain absconding and has filed this
second application for similar relief to which he is not entitled.

8. Dismissed.

9. 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Your email address will not be published.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