Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010124352025 2025:GAU-AS:9217 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1901/2025 ABDUR RAHMAN SK @ ABDOR RAHMAN SK. S/O LATE TARAF ALI SK. R/O JHALER ALGA PT.I, P.S. GAURIPUR, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN CODE-78331 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SILIMA SULTANA W/O KOBBAT HUSSAIN R/O JHALER ALGA PT. I P.S. GAURIPUR DIST. DHUBRI ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. K DEVI, N YEPTHO,MS S A KHALIFA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 16.07.2025 1. Heard Ms. N. Yeptho, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam as well as Ms. A.N. Hussain, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Abdur Rahman Sk@Abdur Rahman Sk, who has been detained behind the bars since 24.04.2025 (for the last 82 days) in connection with Gauripur P.S. Case No. 177/2025 (corresponding to GR Case No. 642/2025) under Sections 70(2)/351(3) of BNS read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 21.04.2025, the maternal aunt of the victim girl had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in- Charge of Gauripur Police Station, inter alia, alleging that on 19.04.2025 when the niece of the informant was going to Dhuburi Astami Mela, the accused persons named in the FIR (two accused persons are named in the FIR, including the present petitioner) kidnapped her and raped her and thereafter made video of the whole incident and after the offence, she was threatened that the video of the incident would be made viral on social media. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations made in the FIR are not true. She submits that the victim girl is Page No.# 3/4 not a minor but she is of 19 years of age, as revealed from the general information regarding students available in the portal Unified District Information System for Education (UDISE). She also submits that the petitioner was in consensual relationship with the victim girl. She also submits that considering the fact that the petitioner has been detained behind the bars for the last 82 days, he may be allowed to go on bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. B. Sharma has produced the Case Diary of Gauripur P.S. Case No. 177/2025 and has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that he is one of the co-accused in a heinous offence of gang rape and there are sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner on record. He also submits that the birth certificate of the victim girl which is available on record shows that the victim girl is of 17 years of age. 6. The learned counsel for the informant, i.e. respondent No. 2 has also opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner may threaten the victim girl if he is released and there are sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and has gone through the Case Diary which is available before this Court. 8. On perusal of the Case Diary, it appears that from the documents available in the Case Diary, the victim girl prima facie appears to be a minor from the date of alleged offence. Page No.# 4/4 9. It also appears on perusal of the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023 that she was subjected to gang rape, by the petitioner and one more accused persons and thereafter, the accused persons made videography of the entire incident. 10. Considering the nature of offence involved in this case as well as incriminating materials against the petitioner and also a probability that if at this stage, the petitioner is released, there is every likelihood that he may try to influence the victim girl. Hence, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is hereby rejected at this stage. 12. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant