Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010082682025 2025:GAU-AS:4806 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Bail Appln./1001/2025 INAMUL HOQUE AND 3 ORS. S/O. KALAMUL HAQUE R/O-NIZ NAGAJAN P.O AND P.S-KHARUPETIA DIST-DARRANG ASSAM 2: PRANOY JYOTI SAIKIA S/O-NANDESWAR SAIKIA VILL-SAIKIAPARA P.S-MANGALDOI DIST-DARRANG ASSAM 3: SAJID ALOM ISLAM S/O-MD.NUR ISLAM VILL-NAGARBAHI P.S-MANGALDOI DIST-DARRANG ASSAM 4: SAHIN JAMAN S/O-LATE KHATIM UDDIN AHMED VILL-WARD NO.2 Page No.# 2/5 MANGALDAI P.S-MANGALDAI DIST-DARRANG ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP ASSAM 2:SMTI GITA SARKAR W/O-KARTICK SARKAR R/O-WARD NO.2 KHAJA NAGAR P.S- MANGAL DAI DIST-DARRANG ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. T R SARMA Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 22-04-2025 Heard Mr. T.R. Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State respondent and Dr. P. Agarwal, the learned Amicus Curiae for respondent no. 2. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with prayer for bail as the petitioner is behind bars since 26.02.2025 in connection with Mangaldoi P.S. Case No. 41/2025 u/s 3(5), 117(2), 118(2), 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) read with Section Page No.# 3/5 12, 21(2) of POCSO Act, 2012. 3. Case Diary is received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioners that all the petitioners are the young boys of age group of 23 to 26 years and they were also admitted in the said rehab centre as a patient. There was an altercation and scuffle took place but no such incident has taken place as alleged in the FIR. More so, from the seizure list it is seen that only one plastic pipe was recovered and except that no other weapon or material was seized by police during investigation. Mr. Sharma further submitted that in the Forwarding Report also there is no mention about any specific injury sustained by the victim in the present case. All the accused/petitioners are behind the bars since last 26.02.2025 and hence considering their length of detention also they may be released on bail. However, they will extend their cooperation in further investigation of the case. Mr. Sharma further submitted that there is no ingredient to attract Section 118(2) of the BNSS as alleged in the FIR. 5. Mr. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that the alleged incident had taken place on 17.02.2025 and the FIR lodged only after circulation of the video on 25.02.2025. As the victim was examined after 6/7 days of the occurrence, there was no external injury was found at the time of examination. Further he submitted that there is no mention that the petitioners were also admitted in the said rehab centre as patients. As per the witnesses they are the employees of the rehab centre and not patients. Mr. Borthakur raised objection and submitted that bail may not be considered at this stage. 6. Ms. Agarwal, the learned Amicus Curiae submitted in this regard that this Page No.# 4/5 kind of activities are going on in most of the rehab centres and these persons who were stated to be the staff of the said rehab centre, that centre was trusted by the patients/victims but in the name of their treatment the staff of the said rehab centre were doing such things to the patients. She further submitted that one of the co-accused who was released on bail was the owner of the rehab centre and he was not present at the relevant time of the incident. Dr. Agarwal accordingly submitted that if the present accused/petitioners were released on bail they may get encouragement to do this kind of crime further. 7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the Case Diary, it is seen that though it is alleged that the victim sustained grievance hurt during the incident but there is no medical report to that effect rather it says that there was no external injury detected at the time of his examination. Further it is seen that accused/petitioners are behind the bars since last 57 days and hence considering the length of detention already undergone by the accused/petitioners, I find that the Investigating Officer got sufficient opportunity to interrogate the present accused/petitioners keeping them in the custody. I find that further custodial interrogation may not be required for the interest of the investigation. Accordingly, I find it is a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the present accused/petitioners. 8. Accordingly, the accused/petitioners are released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi. The accused/petitioners, namely [1] Inamul Hoque [2] Pranoy Jyoti Saikia [3] Sajid Alom Islam and [4] Sahin Jaman be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation Page No.# 5/5 by the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (iii) that the petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi without prior permission. The Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant