Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010145532026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1984/2026 SAHABUDDIN S/O- LATE ABDUL MAZID, VILLAGE- NO. 1 DEJOO PATHAR P.S. NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE P.P., ASSAM. 2:MD HAFIJUR RAHMAN ALIAS HAFIJUL RAHMAN S/O- ABDUL MOTALEB VILLAGE- NO. 1 DEJOO PATHAR P.S. NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MD. A HUSSAIN, MR. T ISLAM,MR. K ALOM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. A MANNAF(R2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 17.08.2025 1. Heard Md. A. Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State respondent No.1 and Mr. A. Mannaf, learned counsel appearing for respondent Page No.# 2/3 No.2. 2. This petition under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the accused-petitioner, namely, Sahabuddin, praying for grant of bail in connection with Special (POCSO) Case No.214/2025 under Sections 332(a)/77/137(2)/65(1)/64(2)(m)/351(3) BNS, R/W Section 6/14/15 of the POSCO Act. 3. Scanned copy of the TCR, as called for, has been received. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that six witnesses have been examined till date and the petitioner was arrested on 09.11.2025 and has already spent 231 days in custody. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since most of the witnesses have been examined, the petitioner may be granted bail . 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the statements made by different witnesses clearly implicate the petitioner. Hence, the bail of the petitioner at this stage may not be granted looking at the stage of trial. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that the victims' statements do not reveal that the petitioner may not be guilty of the allegations made. Accordingly, he prayed that bail may not be considered at this stage. 6. I have gone through the scanned copy of the TCR and I have also heard counsel for the parties. 7. The counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the notice under Section 47 of the BNSS as supplied to the petitioner did not fulfill the mandatory requirements in as much as it was given in English while the petitioner is not able to understand. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court as delivered in the case of Vihaan Kumar versus State of Haryana and Page No.# 3/3 others, reported in 2025(5) SC 799. 8. I have gone through the copy of the notice under Section 47 BNSS supplied to the petitioner and it does not appear at this stage that the petitioner at the relevant point, when the notice was supplied, had made any allegation that he did not understand the contents of the notice. The petitioner has also not been able to produce any record to show that he had made such allegation before the learned Magistrate at the time of arrest. 9. Accordingly, I do not find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the petition stands rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant