Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010150582025 2025:GAU-AS:9974 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2212/2025 RINKU AHMED SON OF NUR HUSSAIN ALI R/O VILL- KARIA BIHDIA P.S. NALBARI DIST. NALBARI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A K BORAH, MR. H S BORAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 01-08-2025 Heard Mr. H.S. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Page No.# 2/3 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Rinku Ahmed, who has been detained behind the bars since 08.06.2025 in connection with Nalbari Police Station Case No. 219/2024 under Sections 354(D)/509/306 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 02.07.2024, the father of the victim girl had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of Kamarkuchi Police Out Post, inter-alia, alleging that the petitioner uploaded obscene photographs of the victim girl in the social media as a result of which the victim girl consumed poison. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations made in the FIR are not true. He did not upload any obscene photographs in the social media as alleged in the FIR. He also submits that the petitioner has been detained behind the bars for last 55 (Fifty Five) days and considering the length of detention, the petitioner may be allowed to go on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that there are incriminating materials against the petitioner in the Case Diary. He has also submitted that even a dying declaration of the victim girl has been recorded where she has implicated the present petitioner in the offence alleged in the FIR. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the Case Diary. Though the petitioner has been detained behind the bars for last 55 (Fifty Five) days, however, considering the nature of Page No.# 3/3 offence alleged in this case as well as the incriminating materials available in the Case Diary, this Court is reluctant to grant him bail at this stage of investigation. The prayer for bail is rejected at this stage. 7. This Bail Application is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant