ORDER

22.11.2024 Heard Mr. B. K. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner as well as Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State respondent. Learned Amicus Curiae, Ms. P. Agarwal is not present in spite of her name is shown in the cause list.

By filing this petition under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 the accused-

petitioner, namely, Prabhat Ch. Das, has prayed for grant of bail in connection with Tamulpur P.S. Case No.246/2024 under Sections 8/10 of POCSO Act.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the Headmaster of Mahbari L.P. School, Tamulpur. The allegation made in the FIR is totally false and concocted and from the allegation made in the FIR, it appears that it is a bailable offence if Section 8/10 of the POCSO Act is not added in this case. He further submitted that the IO has never served notice upon the accused petitioner under Section 35(3) of BNSS Act and the grounds of arrest is also required to be narrated in the arrest memo which is also missing in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred a case law of (2024) 8 SCC

254 (Prabir Purkayastha vs State (NCT of Delhi) where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail to an accused in similarly situated case.

Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary and has made objection in granting bail to the petitioner.

I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties also perused the case diary. There is no reflection in the case diary that notice under Section 35(3) BNSS, 2023 was issued against the petitioner. The ground of arrest has also not been shown in the arrest memo which is mandatory in nature.

In the case of Santender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:

“(b) The investigating agencies and their officers are duty-bound to comply with the mandate of Section 41 and 41A of the Code and the directions issued by this Court in Arnes Kumar (supra). Any dereliction on their part has to be brought to the notice of the higher authorities by the court followed by appropriate action.

(C) The courts will have to satisfy themselves on the compliance of Section 41 and 41A of the Code. Any non-compliance would entitle the accused for grant of bail.”

In view of the submission of learned counsel for both the parties and the settled proposition of law, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two suitable sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Baksa The direction for bail is further subject to the conditions that the petitioner:

(a) shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of learned Special Judge, Baksa without prior written permission from him/her;

(b) shall not hamper with the investigation, or tamper with the evidence of the case;

(c) shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

In terms of the above, this bail application stands disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant Order downloaded on 03-02-2025 02:30:30 PM