Back
2020 Supreme(Gau) 214
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.
Kalpajyoti Baruah & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam - Respondent
AB 48 of 2020
Decided On : 12-03-2020
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail and Anticipatory Bail
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.120(b), S.325, S.376, S.498(a), S.506
Headnote
Pre-arrest Bail - Section 438 CrPC - Allegations of Rape and Dowry Harassment - The court found the allegations to be contradictory and not inspiring, leading to the grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in connection with a case involving allegations of rape, torture, and dowry harassment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the allegations to be contradictory and not inspiring, leading to the grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused petitioners.
Issues: Allegations of rape, torture, and dowry harassment, contradictory statements of the informant, and the involvement of the petitioners as husband and in-laws.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the contradictory and cryptic nature of the allegations, the lack of specific details to attract the offence under Section 498A IPC, and the absence of compelling reasons for custodial detention.
Final Decision: The interim bail order was made absolute, and the anticipatory bail application was disposed of in favor of the accused petitioners.
Ms. T Som, for the Appellant; PP, Assam, for the Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. By this application under Section 438 CrPC , petitioners, namely, 1) Kalpajyoti Baruah, 2) Manju Baruah, and 3) Bapu Ram Baruah, have sought for pre-arrest bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Hajo PS Case No. 1039/2019, under Sections 120 (B)/498 (A)/325/376/506 IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides.
3. Also perused the record and the Case Diary.
4. So far as the allegation of the informant is concerned, she has alleged that her brother-in- law/accused Deepak Kalita, committed rape upon her on several occasions and her husband and others also tortured her on the demand of dowry. The statement of the victim/informant has also been recorded by this time and she has stated all about the facts that the accused Deepak Kalita committed rape upon her in the month of November and earlier also, but it cannot be understood as to how such incident could happen in the presence of her husband. On the other hand, testimonies of all other witnesses are also cryptic as regards the demand of dowry etc. No any specific incidence/the manner/ time of any such incident is mentioned so as to attract the offence Under Section 498 A IPC.
5. Statement of the informant itself is contradictory and hence, not inspiring. The present petitioners are husband and in-laws of the informant.
6. In the given circumstances, it appears that custodial detention of the accused petitioners is not warranted.
7. Accordingly, the interim bail order dated 07.01.2020, is hereby made absolute. Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of.
8. Return the Case Diary.
