ASHIRBAD HAZARIKA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. M. Phukan, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent State of Assam.

(2.) Be it noted there that this application under Sec. 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Cr.P.C.], is preferred by accused, namely, Sri Ashirbad Hazarika, who has been languishing in jail hazoot in connection with Dhula P.S. Case No. 114/2022, under Ss. 302/376, Indian Penal Code [IPC] read with Sec. 10 of the POCSO Act, 2017 read with Sec. 14 of the Child and Adolescent Labour [Prohibition and Regulation] Act, 1986 and also Ss. 120B/201/218 of the IPC, for granting bail.

(3.) Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner was working as Circle Officer [attached], Dalgaon Revenue Circle in the District of Darrang and that he has conducted inquest report upon the dead body of a girl child, aged 13 years, who allegedly committed suicide in the house of one Krishna Kamal Baruah on 11/6/2022. Mr. Choudhury further submits that later on, in connection with the said incident, Dhula Police Station Case No. 114/2022, under Sec. 376/302 read with Sec. 10 of the POCSO Act and read with Sec. 14 of the Child Labour [Prohibition and Regulation] Act, 1986 has been registered and after investigation charge sheet has been laid against accused Krishna Kamal Baruah to stand trial under the said Sec. of law, but the I.O. continued investigation under sec. 173(8) Cr.P.C. and later on, added Sec. 120(B)/201/218 IPC, and during the course of further investigation the I.O. has arrested accused Ashirbad Hazarika on 10/11/2022, and forwarded him to the court. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the accused is innocent and he was never imparted any training as to how to conduct inquest and though some commission or omission are there on the part of the petitioner in conducting the inquest of the girl child, yet he is noway involved with rest of the offences and the offences, if at all made out against the petitioner, the same are under Ss. 120B/201/218, IPC and are bailable in nature, and by virtue of sec. 120(B) IPC the accused cannot be roped with the substantive offences and that the accused has been co-operating with the investigating agency and will co-operate further, and as he is a public servant there is no chance of absconding and that there is also no chance of hampering investigation or tampering the witnesses and therefore. Mr. Choudhury contended to allow this petition. Mr. Choudhury also referred one case law Tehseen Poon-awalla Vs. Union of India and Anr, reported in [2018] 6 SCC 72, to highlight the scope of an enquiry under Sec. 174, CrPC and the purpose of the same.