ORDER

10-03-2021 This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., praying for pre-arrest bail by the petitioner, namely, Inamul Hoque @ Jitu, in connection with Satgaon Police Station Case No. 46 of 2021, registered under Sections 342/328/376 of the IPC, read with Section 67(A) of the I.T. Act.

Heard Ms. T. Som, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. N.K. Kalita, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

The case diary produced, has been perused including the statement of the victim, recorded under Sections 161 as well as 164 of the Cr.P.C.

The allegation of the victim is to the effect that she was in love with the accused-petitioner, who had sexual intercourse with her in the year 2019, to be specific, on 28-12-2019 such fact has been alleged in her statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. In the statement, recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., in contradiction to the statement made under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., she had stated that the alleged sexual intercourse had taken place on 28-12-2020. If the alleged occurrence had taken place in the year 2019, as stated in the statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., then also the FIR was lodged more than one year after the date of occurrence, i.e., on 02-02-2020. On the other hand, the date of alleged sexual intercourse, as revealed in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. if believed to be true, then also the FIR was lodged after about 2 months of the date of occurrence. The victim is a major is a fact undisputed.

In the FIR itself it is indicated that only after uploading the photograph of close moments in the facebook account and that after it became public, she had lodged the FIR. The tone and tenor of her statement, on above facts, makes it look like a case that she would not have objected to the physical sexual relation had her alleged objectionable photographs not been uploaded in the facebook account. Therefore, it appears that the accused-petitioner had sex with the victim, prima facie, with her consent. However, the photographs available in the case diary, which were allegedly uploaded in the facebook account, do not appear to be sexually coloured to attract the provision of Section 67A of the I.T. Act. However, the observation made above is tentative and the view taken on the basis of such observation, is all for the purpose of this bail application only.

In view of the above observation, the petitioner is granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail.

Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, above named, in connection with the case aforementioned, he shall be released on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/-, with a suitable surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of arresting authority.

The direction for pre-arrest bail is subject to the conditions that the petitioner:

(a) shall appear before the Investigating Police Officer of concerned Police Station, within seven days from today and shall co-operate with the investigation;

(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.

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Return the case diary.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant