Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010107942025 2025:GAU-AS:10179 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1647/2025 MOFIDUL KHAN @ MOHIDUL KHAN SON OF SIDDIQUE ALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-DHUBRI CHAR, POLICE STATION- DHUBRI, DISTRICT- DHUBRI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:CHINU BHADRA (INFORMANT) WIFE OF ATIM BHADRA RESIDENT OF BHASKARNAGAR P.S- CHANDMARI DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI- 03 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S RANA, MRS. M TALUKDAR,MR. S Z RAHMAN,MR. N I KHAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. SURAJIT DAS, (AMICUS CURIAE, R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 05.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. E. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Assam as well as Mr. S. Das, the learned Page No.# 2/3 Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent No. 2. 2. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Mofidul Khan @ Mohidul Khan, who has been detained behind the bars since 07.09.2024, in connection with Sessions (Spl.) Case No. 271/2024, under Sections 137(2)/65 of the BNS read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been detained behind the bars since 07.09.2024 and the trial has already reached its culmination, as it is fixed for argument on the next date, i.e. on 12th August, 2025. 4. He submits that at present stage, there is no chance of influencing any witnesses as they have already been examined. There is no reason for keeping the petitioner behind the bars at this stage and hence, he prays for allowing the petitioner to go on bail. 5. On the other hand, Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the trial is at the end and the Sessions (Spl.) Case No. 271/2024, is fixed for argument on 12th August, 2025. 6. He submits that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner in the record and there is a high probability of the trial ending in the conviction of the present petitioner and therefore, he submits that considering the stage of the trial, the prayer for bail is Page No.# 3/3 rejected at this stage. 7. The learned Amicus Curiae, on the other hand, also opposes the grant of bail and submits that at this stage, it should be left on the Trial Court to decide the case according to its merit and as the trial is pending at the last stage, the bail may not be granted at this stage. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. 9. Since, in this case the trial has already reached almost its culmination and it is fixed for argument on 12.08.2025, which is also not a very long date, this Court is reluctant to grant bail to the petitioner considering the stage of the trial. 10. However, it is hereby made clear that if any unreasonable delay in disposal of the aforesaid case occurs in this case, the petitioner may approach the Trial Court praying for bail before the said Court, if so advised. 11. This bail application is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant