Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010085442025 2025:GAU-AS:8509 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1303/2025 ABBAS ALI @ BIHARI S/O- MD. ABED ALI R/O- VILL- NO.1 BHOMRABIL P.S- GOSSAIGAON, DIST- KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:KOBBAT BALI S/O- LATE LASKAR ALI R/O- NO.1 HOWRIAPET P.S- GOSSAIGAON DIST- KOKRAJHAR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A AHMED, MR A AHMED,U U KHAN,MR. M A CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS B CHOUDHURY, AMICUS CURIAE (R-2) Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK 24/06/2025 Heard Mr. A Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K K Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent/opposite party No. 1. Also heard Ms. B Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae for the opposite party No. 2/informant/father of the minor victim girl. 2. The petitioner, namely, Abbas Ali @ Bihari, son of Md. Abed Ali, resident of Village-No. 1 Bhomrabil, P.S. Gossaigaon, District-Kokrajhar, has filed this application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, on 22.04.2025, praying for his bail in Special (POCSO) Case No. 152/2024 arising out of Gossaigaon Police Station Case No. 16/2024, in which charge under Section 366 IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, read with Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act was framed against him, wherein he was arrested on 24.06.2024 and is in custody since then. 3. As per the FIR lodged by the opposite party No. 2, the case is that the informant as a complainant lodged a complaint petition before the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Gossaigaon on 21.06.2023 against the petitioner and two others alleging that the petitioner kidnapped his minor daughter on 26.11.2022 in a car, taking advantage of absence of the other family members in the house of the informant on the night of 26.11.2022 around 10:00 PM. After about a month, he got information that the petitioner took the minor victim girl to Bihar and after a long search, the victim girl was brought back. While the minor victim girl was at Bihar, the petitioner married her, had forceful physical relation with her and made her pregnant. Later, the petitioner left the minor victim girl and a girl child was born to her, but the petitioner neither look after the minor victim girl nor the girl child born to them. On being forwarded, the said complaint case was registered as Gossaigaon P.S. Case No. 16/2024 under Sections 376/294/506 IPC read with Sections 9/11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act on 02.02.2024. 4. The victim girl was immediately produced before the learned Magistrate on 05.02.2024 and her statement was recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kokrajhar in which the victim girl implicated the petitioner of kidnapping her on the date of the incident, took her to Bihar and committing rape on her and then she was brought back to his house and kept her in his house for two months. After keeping her in his house for two months, he dropped her in her paternal house, wherein a girl child was born to them. Though, she informed the petitioner about the birth of a girl Page No.# 3/5 child, but he did not come and look after the victim girl as well as their child and left for Bihar with his first wife. 5. During investigation of the case, police seized the school certificate of the minor victim girl which indicated the date of birth of the victim girl as 20.06.2005. After a long chase, police could apprehend the petitioner only on 24.06.2024 from village 2 No. Palashguri and was produced before the learned Special Judge, Kokrajhar on 24.06.2024 itself and since then the petitioner is in custody. 6. On completion of the investigation of the case, charge-sheet in said Gossaigaon P.S. Case No. 16/2024 was submitted on 28.06.2024 vide Charge-Sheet No. 79/2024 against the petitioner and two other accused persons of the case under Sections 376/294/506 IPC read with Sections 9/11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. On 06.09.2024, charge under Section 366 IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, read with Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 was framed against the petitioner. 7. It is also seen that as on 01.03.2025, out of 11 named prosecution witnesses, prosecution had adduced evidence of 6 witnesses before the Court of learned Special Judge (POCSO), Kokrajhar, who were thoroughly cross-examined by the defence on behalf of the petitioner. 8. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that considering his detention in custody since 24.06.2024, the Court could consider his bail, as in the meanwhile, the statement of the minor victim girl as well as the informant of the case have already been recorded by the concerned Trial Court, i.e., the Court of learned Special Judge (POCSO), Kokrajhar. 9. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that if the petitioner is released on bail, he will be able to look after the minor victim girl and the girl child born to them. 10. Mr. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam submitted that the victim girl was kidnapped by the petitioner on the night of the incident, i.e., on 26.11.2022 while she was a minor and was taken away to the State of Bihar and confined her there for some time. 11. From the evidence as well as the statement of the minor victim girl/PW1, Mr. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam submitted that the minor victim girl has implicated the petitioner of kidnapping her forcefully and further committing rape on her, while she was a minor. Moreover, it is also submitted by Mr. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam that the petitioner evaded arrest for a long period and could be apprehended only on 24.06.2024. Page No.# 4/5 12. Ms. B Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae for the opposite party No. 2 submitted that out of 11 prosecution witnesses, till March, 2025, evidence of 6 of such witnesses have been adduced by the prosecution and the last date was of 03.06.2025 and that as only few prosecution witnesses remained for recording their evidence, the petitioner should not be released on bail at this stage. 13. Perused the records of said Special (POCSO) Case No. 152/2024 from the Court of learned Special Judge (POCSO), Kokrajhar that was called for by order dated 13.05.2025. 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of X -Vs.- State of Rajasthan, reported in (2024) INSC 909 = 2024 STPL 12498 SC have held that — In serious offences, once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court, be it the Trial Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail application of an accused of the case.” 15. Their Lordships in said X -Vs.- State of Rajasthan further held that — “Over a period of time, we have noticed two things, i.e., (i) either bail is granted after the charge is framed and just before the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before the trial court, or (ii) bail is granted once the recording of the oral evidence of the victim is complete by looking into some discrepancies here or there in the deposition and thereby testing the credibility of the victim. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial commences, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion which may either result in the conviction of the accused or acquittal of the accused. The moment the High Court exercises its discretion in favour of the accused and orders release of the accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence of the victim. It is only in the event if the trial gets unduly delayed and that too for no fault on the part of the accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on the ground that right of the accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed.” 16. Considering the materials in the case records, as charge-sheet in the case was filed on 28.06.2024 and charge was framed on 06.09.2024 and as on 01.03.2025, prosecution has adduced evidence of 6 of its witnesses out of 11 prosecution witnesses and considering the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of X -Vs.- State of Rajasthan (Supra), the Court is of the opinion that the right of the accused petitioner to have a speedy trial has not been infringed. 17. As such, detention of the petitioner since 24.06.2024 cannot be considered for his bail in said Special (POCSO) Case No. 152/2024 arising out of Gossaigaon P.S. Case No. 16/2024. Page No.# 5/5 18. Accordingly, this bail application of the petitioner, Abbas Ali @ Bihari, son of Md. Abed Ali, in said Special (POCSO) Case No. 152/2024 arising out of Gossaigaon P.S. Case No. 16/2024 pending before the Court of learned Special Judge (POCSO), Kokrajhar stands rejected at this stage. 19. It is observed that this order relates to bail of the accused petitioner, namely, Abbas Ali @ Bihari in said Special (POCSO) Case No. 152/2024 arising out of Gossaigaon P.S. Case No. 16/2024 and not on merits of the case, where the trial of said Special (POCSO) Case No. 152/2024 is presently pending for adjudication before the Court of learned Special Judge (POCSO), Kokrajhar. 20. However, it is made clear that the learned Trial Court while adjudicating the said Special (POCSO) Case No. 152/2024 arising out of Gossaigaon P.S. Case No. 16/2024 shall not be influenced by any of the observations or findings, made herein above in this bail application and shall try to complete the adjudication of said Special (POCSO) Case No. 152/2024 at the earliest. 21. The Gauhati High Court Legal Services Authority shall pay the remuneration to Ms. B Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae, who appeared for the opposite party No.2/informant, as being appointed by the Court and assisted the Court in adjudicating this matter, on raising a bill. JUDGE Comparing Assistant