AB 85/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE P K. MUSAHARY Heard Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the accused petitioner and Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Addl. PP, Assam. The accused petitioner, Dr. Syed Mahammad Ali Dewan, is stated to be a registere d Homeopathic Doctor who has established a society in the name and style of Jiva njyoti and also an institute namely, Central Sevapeeth Academy of Nursing under the project of Jivanjyoti Rural Health Care and Awareness Programme, affiliate d to the Ramkrishna Institute of Human Resources Development & Research, West Be ngal He is stated to have been discharging his duty as Principal/Superintendent of the said institute. An FIR was lodged on 9.11.10 against the accused petitio ner by one Rinkumoni Deka with the Officer-in-Charge of Baihata Chariali stating inter-alia that she was admitted as trainee in the said nursing institute of th e accused petitioner and after completion of her training she was appointed as a ssistant in the said institute since the year 2009 and since her joining, the a ccused Doctor, on false promise to marry the informant, co-habited with her and impregnated for two months. It is alleged in the FIR that the accused petitioner took the informant victim to the chamber of Doctor Naba Deka at Rangia on 12.6. 10 promising for a registered marriage if the pregnancy was aborted. On 8.11.10 at about 11.30 a.m. while the informant visited the chamber of the accused to di scuss about the promise, the accused petitioner, his sister and assistant presen t physically assaulted her. The learned Addl. PP, Assam has produced the relevant case diary. I have perused the FIR, statements of the victim girl recorded under Section 161 as well as 16 4 Cr.P.C. The statements made in the FIR and the statements recorded under Secti on 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. have been found consistent and categorical about the sexu al relation between the victim girl and the accused person. It also appears from the case diary that in spite of specific allegation against Dr. Naba Deka, the I.O. did not interrogate him until this court vide order dated 18.1.11 directed the I.O. to take the statement of the aforesaid doctor about the alleged aborti on he performed on the informant. The I.O. is yet to interrogate and take state ments of the other persons namely, nurse and the assistant working in the chamb er of the aforesaid doctor at Rangia. It appears that the investigation was not done in a serious and desired manner. In my considered view, although it is late, in the interest of proper investigat ion and unearthing truth, custodial interrogation is necessary in respect of the accused petitioner and as such the privilege of anticipatory bail cannot grante d to him. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected.