AB/147/2024 of Mame Gumja Vs The State of AP and Anr on 23 December 2024

Arguments

ORDER

Heard Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heardMs T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. T.

Tamin, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/father of the victim.

2. This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS 2023,praying for grant of privilege of pre-arrest bail to the applicant, namely,Mame Gumja in connection with Daporijo P.S. Case No. 84/2024 underSection 74/75(2)/79 BNS 2023 read with Section 8/12 of the POCSOAct.

3. The criminal proceeding has been set into motion on filing of acomplain/FIR before the Officer-in-Charge police station Dajorijo on14.12.2024 by Ms. ‘X’ to the effect that on 17.09.2024, the accused,Shri Mame Gumja made a phone call to the victim and asked her tocome to roam around at Fair(Mela) at Daporijo. The victim took 2sisters along with her. The victim and her 2 sisters went with theaccused in his car. However, the accused did not take victim to theFair(mela) rather took them from Daporijo to the Subansiri Resort andstarted telling unpleasant words. Thereafter, they reached at Subansiriresort at Dugi village and the accused sat besides the victim and touchher whole private part. The accused had also offer sum of Rs.2000/-for non-disclosure of the incident to anyone and later on, the saidamount was handed over to the mother of the victim. On receipt of theabove complain, the police has registered the case being Daporijo P.S.Case No. 84/2024 under Section 74/75(2)/79 BNS 2023 read withSection 8/12 of the POCSO Act.

4. Apprehending arrest in connection with the aforesaid case, theapplicant has filed this present application.

5. Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thepetitioner is about 52 years of age, presently serving as BlockEducation Officer at Daporijo DDSE Office. He submits that the victimis a close relative of the accused and they used to visit each other ashe was currently posted at Daporijo. Sometime in the month ofSeptember, victim as usual requested him to take her out for roamingand to visit Mela at Daporijo. On such request, considering that victimis a daughter of his relative and previously had gone out for outing, hehad picked her up from school at around 4 PM along with her sistersand took them out for roaming and dropped them back.

6. He submits that the FIR has been filed at the behest of somewomen group, which might have some grudge against the accusedapplicant. He submits that the allegation in the FIR is totally false andaccused applicant being married and having two daughters and son,could not imagine to act as alleged to the victim who is a relative.Therefore, he submits that the accused applicant be extended theprivilege of pre-arrest bail.

7. Ms T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced thecase diary along with up to date status.

8. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Daporijo has recorded thestatement of the victim under Section 183(5) of the BNSS, 2023. Onthe perusal of the statement of the victim, it clearly shows that thevictim had narrated the incident in detail, which reflects, prima facie, commission of the offence as alleged.

9. Mr. T. Tamin, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitsthat he has no objection if the accused applicant is granted pre-arrestbail as he does have knowledge about filing of the FIR.

10. It is stated at the bar that after registration of the FIR, thecustody of the victim was given to CWC. Thereafter, her custody hasbeen given to her aunt.

11. Having considered the case diary and up to date case status and statement under Section 183 BNSS, 2023 recorded by the learnedChief Judicial Magistrate and also considering the serious nature of theoffence alleged above, this Court is not inclined to admit the accusedapplicant on pre-arrest bail although the father of the victim not havingthe custody of the victim, has submitted that he would not have anyobjection if the bail is granted. Accordingly, the prayer for privilege ofpre-arrest bail is rejected.

12. The anticipatory bail application stands dismissed and disposed of.

JUDGE