Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010069632025 2025:GAU-AS:5616 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1004/2025 RASMIL ALI @ BABULI ALI S/O- MOSEN ALI R/O VILL-GORIYA CHATIA P.S. SARTHEBARI PIN-781312 DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:JANMONI BEGUM (INFORMANT) D/O WAHED ALI R/OVILL-GORIYA CHATIA P.S. SARTHEBARI PIN-781312 DIST. BARPETA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M GARODIA, MR. S HAQUE,MS S ABDULLAH,MD IMRAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, DR. P AGARWAL, AMICUS CURIAE (R-2) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 06.05.2025 Heard Mr. M. Garodia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No.1 and Ms. S. Nath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Dr. P. Agarwal, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No.2. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, who has been languishing in jail hazot since 14.03.2025 in connection with Dispur P. S. Case No.1299/2024, registered under Sections 354B/376 of IPC read with Section 6 of POCSO Act. 3. The Case Diary has been received and I have perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Garodia, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the present petitioner is innocent and he is no way involved in the alleged offence. He further submitted that, based on the same set of allegations and cause of action, one FIR was earlier lodged against the present petitioner in connection with Sarthebari P.S. Case No. 94/2023, registered under Sections 120(B)/365/342 of the IPC, which has been charge-sheeted, and the petitioner is currently facing trial in that case. Subsequently, on 12.06.2024, another FIR was lodged by the victim herself, containing the same set of allegations along with additional allegations of outraging her modesty and of a physical relationship and it was registered on 06.12.2024, i.e., 6 (six) months after the lodging of the FIR. He further submitted that, while it is a fact that there was a love relationship between the petitioner and the victim, no such incident as Page No.# 3/4 alleged in the FIR actually occurred, and the subsequent FIR has been filed solely to harass the petitioner. The petitioner has been in custody for the last 54 days, during which the Investigating Officer got sufficient time to interrogate him. Thus, further custodial detention may not be necessary. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that at the time of the alleged incident, the victim was a minor. However, she lodged the FIR after attaining the age of majority. Moreover, she has alleged that there was a physical relationship without her consent, as also stated in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS. 6. Ms. Nath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Amicus Curiae, submitted that it is an admitted fact that the victim was a minor at the relevant time of the incident. The victim has alleged that the accused/petitioner engaged in a physical relationship with her without her consent. Therefore, at this stage, she raised an objection and submitted that this is not a fit case for granting bail to the accused/petitioner. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, I have perused the case diary and the annexures attached to the petition. Taking into account the duration of detention already undergone by the accused/petitioner, i.e., 54 days, I am of the view that further custodial detention of the accused/petitioner does not appear to be necessary in this case. 8. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Kamrup (M), the accused/petitioner, namely, Rasmil Ali @ Babuli Ali, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following Page No.# 4/4 conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat 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 petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge, Kamrup (M), without prior permission. 9. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. 10. Case Diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant