Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010099732025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1545/2025 RIAJUL ISLAM MANDAL S/O ABDUR RAHIM MANDAL R/O VILL-AMBARI, P.S. BAGUAN DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MR. M. A. CHOUDHURY,K MAINUDDIN,MR. I U CHOWDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 26.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. H. R. A. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. I. U. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, 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, Riajul Islam Mandal who has been detained behind the bars since 27.04.2025 (for the last 29 days) in connection with All Women P. S. Case No. 42/2025 under Sections 64/308(5)/351(3) of the BNS, 2023. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that the victim girl in this case lodged an FIR on 19.04.2025 before the Officer-in-Charge of All Women Police Station, Panbazar, inter-alia, alleging that the petitioner was initially the friend of the informant, however, later on, he started pressurizing her to have physical relationship and threatened her of severe consequences to which, she ultimately succumbed. 4. It is also alleged in the FIR that the petitioner also took intimate photographs with the informant and started blackmailing her of paying her Rs. 5000/- per month and also threatened her to upload her obscene photos on the whatsapp and facebook. 5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR itself shows that the relationship between the victim and the present petitioner was of consensual nature. It also shows that there was no promise to marry to coerce consent from her for sexual intercourse on the pretext of marrying her. 6. He also submits that one of the alleged physical relationship is also reported to have occurred in the residence of the victim girl, which could not be possible unless the relationship is of consensual nature. He further submits that the petitioner has been detained behind the bars since last 29 days and he is ready to cooperate in the investigation and, therefore, he prays for allowing the petitioner to go on bail. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has Page No.# 3/4 vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the present petitioner on the grounds that even if it is assumed that there was a relationship between the petitioner and the victim girl, there is clear indication of blackmailing the victim girl by the petitioner. 8. It is also submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that in a statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, 2023, the victim girl has implicated the present petitioner. 9. He further submits that if the petitioner is released at this stage there is every likelihood that he may threaten and influence the victim girl again. Hence, he has opposed the grant of bail to the present petitioner. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides. 11. Apparently, in this case there is no indication as to whether there was any promise to marry the victim girl to coerce consent from her, however, the victim girl has alleged that she was forced to have physical relationship with the present petitioner. 12. On the other hand, considering the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, it also appears that the physical relationship between the petitioner and the victim may also be consensual. Whatever may be the actual fact, this has to be left for the Investigating Officer to investigate, however, considering the fact that the petitioner has been detained behind the bars for the last 29 days as well as considering the fact that the investigation has progressed much, this Court is of the opinion that if the petitioner cooperates with the Investigating Officer, his custodial detention may not be necessary for fair completion of the investigation. 13. Regarding the apprehension shown by the learned Additional Public Page No.# 4/4 Prosecutor that there is a probability of influencing or threatening of the victim by the present petitioner sufficient conditions may be imposed to ensure that the same does not happen. 14. In view of above discussion, the above-named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only), with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup 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 Investigating Officer. 15. It is hereby made clear that any violation of the aforesaid condition would liable this bail order to be cancelled. 16. This bail application is, accordingly disposed of. 17. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant