Gauhati High Court Suo Motu Issues Notice To 10 Booked For Rape On Plea For Cancelling Bail After Noting That Victim Was Not Heard

The Gauhati High Court at Itanagar issued notice on a plea for cancellation of bail of ten accused in a rape and trafficking case sought on the ground that no notice was issued to the victim or informant and that the trial court had granted bail without hearing the victim/informant. 

Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi was hearing a Suo Motu plea,  against a suspended Assistant Commandant of 1^st APP Battalion (petitioner) who was arrested on May 14, 2024 in a case under Section 373(Buying minor for purposes of prostitution, etc.) IPC read with Sections 6, 8, 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and under Sections 3, 4, 5,6 of the Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956 and he was detained in custody for more than 48 hours.

Thereafter, the State respondent authorities by order dated June 2, 2024 suspended the petitioner from service w.e.f., May 14, 2024.

Later, the Special Judge (POCSO) by order dated October 3, 2024 released the petitioner on interim bail, which was extended from time to time. Vide order dated January 18 the Trial Court made the interim bail granted to the petitioner absolute.

The petitioner filed a writ petition for a direction to the respondent authorities for his reinstatement in service as Assistant Commandant of 1^st APP Battalion. While considering the said writ petition, the High Court noticed that the order of bail which was passed by the Trial Court did not reflect that the victims were in fact heard.

Accordingly, the present Suo Moto proceeding was directed to be initiated which was taken up on May 09, 2025. On the said date, the Court passed elaborate order touching upon the facts of the case and also discussed the guidelines passed by the Gauhati High Court in a notification dated March 15 which was in accordance with an order dated June 23, 2023 passed by the Court in Dipak Nayak Vs. State of Assam & Ors. Crl. Appl.(J)/40/2022. Accordingly, notice was issued as to why the bail should not be cancelled.

During the hearing on May 19, the Standing Counsel informed the Court that from a perusal of the records, the aspect of hearing the victim which is mandatory in nature was not followed. It was further informed that apart from the present petitioner there are other accused who were granted bail by the Trial Court on January 10. 

The Counsel appearing for the accused-respondent submitted that his client did not have any role in the procedure which was to be followed and bail was granted in accordance with law which is not liable to be cancelled. He also submitted that no fault can be attributed to his client for the bail granted to him by the Trial Court.

The APP submitted that the guidelines framed vide Notification No. 17, dated March 15, 2024 issued by the High Court after the case of Dipak Nayak are mandatory in nature as the objective thereof is to give the victim not only an opportunity but an effective hearing before passing any orders in an application/appeal filed by the accused persons involving POCSO Act.

The Court thus issued notice to the ten mentioned accused persons.

“The learned trial Court is also required to transmit the copies of the bail orders for rest of the accused persons to examine as to whether the guidelines laid down in Notification No. 17, dated 15.03.2024 were followed to enable this Court to pass further orders,” the Court ordered.

The matter is listed again on June 3.

Case Title: In Re Gauhati High Court Itanagar Permanent Bench v. Bulang Marik

Case No.: Crl.Petn. (Suo Moto)/1/2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order