Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010084162025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1292/2025 NUR MAHMMAD SHEIKH @ NUR MAHMMAD ALI S/O SULTAN ALI R/O VIL-KORTIMARI P.S.LAKHIPUR DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR F HAQUE, MR A ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 27.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. F. Haque, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Page No.# 2/4 Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Nur Mahmmad Sheikh @ Nur Mahmmad Ali, who has been detained behind the bars since 20.03.2025 (for the last 69 days) in connection with Lakhipur P. S. Case No. 158/2024 under Sections 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The gist of the accusation in this case is that on 11.06.2024, the victim woman had lodged a complaint before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara, inter-alia, alleging that on 13.05.2024, the present petitioner came to the house of the informed and took her in an Alto car on the pretext of discussing some matter. 4. It is further alleged that thereafter, he took her to a forest area of Meghalaya and committed rape on her accused her will. 5. It is also stated in the FIR that the petitioner also falsely promised the informant that he will marry her. However, it is further alleged in the FIR that later on the petitioner threatened the informant. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the accusation levelled against the present petitioner in the FIR are not true. 7. He submits that the petitioner is a young boy 21 years of age, whereas he victim is a married lady with four children and false accusation has been levelled against the petitioner only with an intention to extort money from him. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that though it stated in the complaint that the alleged incident had occurred on 13.05.2024, however, the complaint was filed belatedly on 11.06.2024 i.e., about after 28 days and no explanation has been given for the delay in loading of the complaint. 9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the case diary could not be produced and prays some more time. Page No.# 3/4 10. He has also submitted that he has received an e-mail from the concerned police station, inter-alia, informing that the Investigating Officer of Lakhipur P. S. Case No. 158/2024 is on leave and therefore, the case diary could not be sent. The cause shown for not submitting the case diary on the repeated occasions does not appear to be reasonable cause. 11. Even when the Investigating Office is on leave after repeated requisition for case diary, the same can be send by the Officer-in-Charge of the said police station also and therefore, no further indulgences may be granted. 12. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for both the sides and gone through the materials available on record. 13. Without making any observation as regards to the merit of the case, it appears that the petitioner has been detained behind the bars for the last 69 days and considering the nature of the accusation levelled against the present petitioner, the period of 69 days appears to be sufficient for any sort of custodial interrogation, which may be required for the purpose of investigation. 14. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that if the petitioner co-operate in the investigation, his further custodial detention may not be necessary. 15. In view of the above discussion, the above-named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with one suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara subject to the following conditions: i. That the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation. ii. That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts of the case before the Page No.# 4/4 Investigating Officer. 16. This bail application is, accordingly, disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant