ORDER

Date : 13-08-2021

1) Heard Mr. D. K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Additional PP for the State.

2) Case diary called for by this Court earlier has been received and the same is produced before this Court. As such this matter is taken up for disposal today in the presence of both the counsels.

3) This anticipatory bail petition is filed by the petitioner Shri Dhiraj Kr. Kakati, apprehending arrest in connection with Barpeta Police Station Case no. 2617/2020 under section 8 of the POCSO Act. The case was registered on the basis of FIR dated 14.12.2020 filed by the informant Smt. Chaya Das wife of one Shri Dipak Das.

4) It is alleged in the FIR by the informant that the son of the informant who is student of class 10 in Gazia High School, Barpeta went to the school on 12.12.2020 to get a certificate in order to get his Aadhar Card issued. Around 11.30 am the accused person (who is a Head Master in the said school) very tactfully asked the informant’s son to bring a glass of water. There was no other person in the queue and the informant’s son was the last person. When the informant’s son went inside the office room to bring the glass of water, while he was cleaning the glass utensil, the accused in order to fulfil his evil intention grabbed the minor son and kissed him both his cheeks twice. He even asked him to touch his private organs. The informant’s son was ashamed and scared. Even after stiff resistance the accused still continued to forcibly persist with his intention. Somehow, the informant’s son managed to escape from his clutches and eventually narrate the whole incident to his friends and female teachers of the school and as well as to the informant and family members when he returned home from school. The informant therefore filed the FIR and sought appropriate action against accused person.

5) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire allegation is false and concocted and that it has been lodged to harass and take undue advantages of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a respected teacher. He is the Headmaster of the said school. In recognition of his dedicated service, a certificate of excellence was awarded to him by Govt. of Assam, copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-B to the instant AB petition.

6) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was an agreement between the informant’s husband and the petitioner to arrive at a compromise in relation to the incident of the obscene behavior at Gajia High School. The learned counsel referring to the agreement (Annexure –D) to the petition submits that in the presence of witnesses named therein, the matter has been mutually compromised between the informant’s family and the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the notarized affidavits executed by the witnesses to the said mutual settlement arrived at by and between the petitioner and the informant’s family in support of his contention.

7) The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the mandate and the directions of the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 has not been followed by police and as a consequence of which, no section 41 A notice has been issued by the police although the punishment prescribed for Section 8 of the POCSO is up to five years.

8) I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have also carefully perused the case diary produced in the Court as well as the pleadings on record.

9) It is seen that the instant matter is the second bail petition which has been preferred by the petitioner. The earlier petition being AB 215/2021 has been rejected by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.02.2021 which is enclosed as Annexure-C to the bail petition.

10) The case diary reveals that the police had visited his place of residence a number of times but he was not available. I