ORDER

Date : 19-10-2022 Heard Mr. K. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.

D.P. Goswami, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner, namely, Raju Ali @ Rajibur Hoque who is apprehending arrest in connection with GR case no.2045/2015 corresponding to Bhelowguri P.S. case no.62/2015 under section 366A I.P.C., has filed this application under section 438 Cr.P.C., for pre-arrest bail.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has received summons for appearance in connection with the GR case no.2045/2015 corresponding to Bhelowguri P.S. case no.62/2015. It is submitted that the petitioner had no knowledge of the said case prior to receipt of summons. It is submitted that as the case is Session triable case, on his appearance before the learned trial Court there is every likelihood that the petitioner would be arrested and thereafter committal orders would be passed.

4. The learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail.

5. It appears from the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the charge sheet the petitioner has been shown as an absconding accused. Be that as it may, it appears from the order sheet annexed that notwithstanding whether or not the petitioner was shown as absconding accused, but the Court of learned SDJM (S), Morigaon had been issuing summons to the petitioner which appears from the order dated 13.12.2016 and several subsequent orders, and lastly by order dated 05.08.2022, summons returnable on 27.12.2022 has been issued to the petitioner.

6. It is also observed from the order dated 24.08.2022 passed in BA 472/2022 by the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon that as per the FIR dated 28.09.2015, at about 7 p.m. her 13 year old daughter was kidnapped by the petitioner along with two others. It also appears that the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon on a perusal of the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. was of the opinion that the petitioner had established forcible physical relationship with the girl and thereafter she was brought back to her house for which the said learned Court was of the opinion that apart from offence under section 366 IPC and 376 (3) and section 4 of the POCSO Act was made out.

7. Be that as it may, in the present case in hand, the Court is of the considered opinion that no purpose would be served to call for the case diary because in this case the petitioner has been issued with summons to appear before the Court of the learned SDJM (S), Morigaon. Hence, till the next date of appearance, the petitioner has no reasons to apprehend his arrest.

8. Under such circumstances, in view of the fact that the petitioner has received summons to appear before the learned trial Court, for which the arrest of the petitioner is not imminent.

9. This pre-arrest bail application stands closed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant