Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010151202025 2025:GAU-AS:11545 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2246/2025 MD. ABDUL ALI @ ANIL S/O- MD. AZIMUDDIN ALI. R/O- KAHARAGAON, P.O.- SARUPETA. P.S.- PATACHARKUCHI, DIST.- BAJALI, ASSAM. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT - HATKHULA, P.S.- MORAN, DIST.- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:MRS TUNU BEGUM W/O- MD. JALAL HALDAR R/O- MORAN HATKHULA GAON NITAI PATH P.O.- MORANHAT P.S.- MORAN PIN-785670 DIST.- DIBRUGARH ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K HUSSAIN, MRS. S. HAZARIKA,MR. B HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS B CHOUDHURY, AMICUS CURIAE (R-2) Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 27.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Hussain, 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 Ms. B. Choudhury, the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent No. 2. 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Md. Abdul Ali @Anil, who has been detained behind the bars since 02.07.2025(for the last 57 days) in connection with Moran P.S. Case No. 68/2025 under Sections 329(4)/74 of BNS, read with Section 10 of POCSO Act, 2012. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 01.07.2025, the grand- mother of the victim girl had lodged an FIR, inter alia, alleging that in the absence of any of the family members of the victim girl in the house, the petitioner tried to commit rape on her. The age of the victim girl is stated to be above 14 years in the FIR. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a painter by profession and the uncle of the victim girl used to assist him in his work. He submits that the informant used to threaten the petitioner not to take her son as helper with him and therefore, out of grudge she has lodged a false FIR against the petitioner. 5. He further submits that on the day of alleged incident, he was busy in his work at Tinsukia, which is about 80 kms away from the house of victim girl and therefore, the allegations levelled against the petitioner is not true. Page No.# 3/5 6. He further submits that in the instant case, the statement of the victim girl under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023 could not be recorded and he came to know that the aunt of the victim girl has implicated him in the case in her statement made under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 183 (6) of the BNSS, 2023 only victim girl may be examined in case the offence is under Section 74 of the BNSS, 2023. However, in this case, the aunt of the victim girl, who is not the victim in this case was examined under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023 and therefore, her statement should not be taken into consideration. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner has been detained behind the bars for the last 57 days and considering the period of detention, he may be allowed to go on bail. 9. On the other hand, Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the offence involved in this case is against the victim, who is not only the blind, but also dumb and was total helpless victim. He has produced the Case Diary of Moran P.S. Case No. 68/2025 and has submitted that there are eye-witnesses, who have witnessed the petitioner committing the alleged offence upon the victim girl. He has produced the statement of such witnesses recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023. He further submits that apart from the said witnesses, there are many other eye witnesses. 10. The learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent No. 2 has also submitted similar to that of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner, who has committed the offence upon the victim, who is dumb and blind. Page No.# 4/5 11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the Case Diary, which was produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 12. At the very beginning, this Court intends to clarify that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in an offence under Section 74 of the BNSS, 2023 only the statement of the victim can be recorded as per provisions of Section 183(6) and other witnesses cannot be examined under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023 is a misconceived motion of the law. What has been provided under Section 183 or obligation has been passed on the Investigating Agency to do all the endeavours to record the statement of the person against whom the offences mentioned in the said section has been committed. However, it does not put any bar in examining other eye-witnesses. In the case, the victim girl is a blind and dumb. Though attempt was made to record the statement of the victim girl under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023 with the help of interpreter, however, the Court failed to record the same. On perusal of the statement of the independent witnesses recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023, it appears that they have implicated the petitioner regarding his complicity in the alleged offence. 13. Considering the nature of the case, condition of the victim girl as well as incriminating materials available in the Case Diary against the present petitioner, this Court is reluctant to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is hereby rejected. 14. Send back the Case Diary. Page No.# 5/5 JUDGE Comparing Assistant