Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010118792025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1838/2025 ZAKIR HUSSAIN TAPADAR SON OF LATE MUSSABIR ALI TAPADAR, RESIDENT OF KAPILIPAR, KHARIKHANA, P.S. LANKA, DIST. HOJAI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:MRS SALEHA KHATOON WIFE OF LATE ABDUL RAHIM RESIDENT OF KAPILIPAR KHARIKHANA LANKA HOJAI ASSAM PIN-782446 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I A TALUKDAR, MR. B HUSSAIN,MR. T HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, ASHRAFUL BORBHUYAN (R-2),TAWHID LASKAR(R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 19.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. I. A. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as Mr. T. Laskar, Page No.# 2/4 learned counsel for the informant. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Zakir Hussain Tapadar, who has been detained behind the bars since 22.05.2025 in connection with Special (POCSO) Case No. 264/2024 corresponding to Lanka P.S. Case No. 191/2024 under Sections 376/241/324/34 of BNS read with Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 3 of PDPP Act, 1984. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 20.06.2024, an FIR was lodged by the grandmother of the victim girl that the accused persons named in the FIR, namely, Junaid Hussain Tapadar had subjected the victim girl to physical intercourse, as a result of which she got pregnant. In the said case, charge-sheet was laid against accused persons named in the FIR as well as two other persons under Sections 376/34 and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. After laying of the charge-sheet, an information was lodged before the Officer-in-charge of Lanka Police Station on 22.05.2025, inter alia, alleging that the present petitioner who is the father of Junaid Hussain Tapadar against whom the charge-sheet was laid at the first instance, had torn the admission register of the year 2013-14 of the No. 2, Kapilipar L.P. School where the victim girl had studied. The said information was given by one Joy Prakash Chouhan. It was also alleged therein that the petitioner went to the house of the informant and torn the school admission register. Thereafter, leave of the Trial Court was taken for continuing further investigation which was granted. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on perusal of the order dated 23.06.2025 passed in Special (POCSO) Case No. 264/2024, it appears that the additional charge-sheet was laid in the same case against the present petitioner under Section 241/324 of BNS read with Section 3 of PDPP, Page No.# 3/4 1984. Accordingly, cognizance of the offence under the aforesaid sections were taken against the present petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the offences with which the petitioner has been accused in the additional charge-sheet are bailable. However, in spite of that he has been detained behind the bars for last 56 days. He, therefore, prays for allowing the petitioner to go on bail. 6. On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the petitioner himself being a Headmaster of School has gone to the extent of destroying the school admission register of a different school so there is a possibility that if he is allowed to go on bail, he may even threaten the victim girl as well as witnesses and, therefore, he submits that till the victim girl is examined the petitioner may not be allowed to go on bail. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant has submitted that though the informant has opposed the grant of bail to the main accused, however, as regards to the present petitioner is concerned as the offences involved are bailable, he leave it to the discretion of the Court. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. 9. As the offences with which the petitioner has been charged in this case are bailable offences and in spite of that he has already been detained behind the bars for last 56 days, this Court is of considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to get bail in this case. 10. Accordingly, the above named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Hojai with following conditions:- (i) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any Page No.# 4/4 inducement, threat or promise to the victim girl or to the witnesses or any other 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; (ii) That the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial; 11. This bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant