Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010149352025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2192/2025 ROHAN DEY ALIAS RAHUL SON OF SRI GANESH DEY RESIDENT OF PANIKHAITI RAIL S TATION P.S. PRAGJYOTISHPUR, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:MINA KUMARI W/O DOLE KUMAR R/O HAJONGBORI NEPALI BASTI PRAGJYOTISHPUR GUWAHATI CENTRAL P.S. PRAGJYOTISHPUR DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. D GHOSH, MR A.K. HAJONG,MR I CHAKMA,MR. S. K. CHAKMA,MS N DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 28.08.2025 1. Heard Ms. D. Ghosh, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent as well as Mr. S. Dey, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. 2. This application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Rohan Dey Alias Rahul, who has been detained behind the bars since 19.02.2025 in connection with Sessions (Special) Case No. 83/2025 under Sections 96 of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 18.02.2025, the mother of the victim girl (respondent No. 2) had lodged a missing complaint before the Officer-in-Charge of Pragjyoti Police Station inter-alia alleging that on 15.02.2025 her daughter (vcitim) went out from her home and did not return back. She could not traced out inspite of vigorous search made out for her. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was having a relationship with the victim girl and on the date of alleged offence he had dropped the victim girl. The petitioner and the victim decided to go for an outing and after that as it was late the victim was reluctant to go back to her home, however, the petitioner insisted to her to go back to her home and the victim girl out to fear decided to stay at Paniketi at her friends place. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner has been detained behind the bars for the last 191 days and he is ready to face trial. Page No.# 3/4 6. She submits that the duration the period of detention undergone by the petitioner and is willing to face trial, he may be allowed to go on bail. 7. On the other hand the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that thought in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, 2023 the victim girl has admitted that she was in an affair with the petitioner, however, at the time of alleged offence the victim was minor and he also submits that though the charges have been framed on 02.06.2025 no prosecution witnesses has been examined till date 8. On the other hand, Mr. S. Dey, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit stating therein that the respondent No. 2 does not have any objection if the petitioner is released on bail as the respondent No. 2 also came to know about the relationship of her daughter with the petitioner. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the scanned copy of the records of Sessions (Special) Case No. 83/2025. 10. Since the respondent No. 2 who is the informant of this case and the mother of the victim girl does not have any objection to grant a bail to the petitioner and also considering the period of detention under gone by the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the petitioner co- operates in the trial his custodial detention may not be necessary for fair completion of the trial of Sessions (Special) Case No. 83/2025 11. In view of the above, the petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Kamrup (M) with the following conditions: i. That the petitioner shall cooperate in the trial of Sessions Page No.# 4/4 (Special) Case No. 83/2025, which is pending in the Court of learned Special Judge (POCSO), Kamrup (M); ii. That the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as and when so required by the Trial Court; iii. 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 before the Trial Court in the trial pending against the present petitioner; iv. That the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial Court and when such leave is granted by the Trial Court, the petitioner shall submit his leave address and contact details during such leave before the Trial Court; and v. That the petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on bail. 12. With the above observation, this bail application is, accordingly, disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant