Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010159732025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2330/2025 SRI CHIRANJIT BRAHMA S/O- SANJIT KR BRAHMA, R/O- VILL OWABARI, P.S- KOKRAJHAR,DIST- KOKRAJHAR (ASSAM) VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY TH PP,ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : S K PODDAR, MS. N PODDAR,MR. C SHARMA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 08.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. SK Poddar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sri Chiranjit Brahma, who has been detained behind the bars since 04.07.2025 in Page No.# 2/4 connection with Kokrajhar P.S. Case No. 164/2025 under Sections 143/ 64(1) of BNS read with Sections 3/4/5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 04.07.2025, one Kaushik Doley S.I. lodged an FIR before the O.C. Kokrajhar Police Station inter alia alleging that on receipt of a secret information from a reliable source the FIR named 2 accused persons including the present petitioner are found to have been running the beauty parlour namely, Relax Unisex Salon located at Kokrajhar and the present petitioner has been engaged in sexual exploitation on young girls who hails from different part of the State of Assam. The allegation made in the FIR is that a raid was conducted in the said beauty parlour on 4.7.2025 during which four victim girls were recovered from the beauty parlour and petitioner was apprehended. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accusations made in the FIR are totally false and the petitioner is no way involved with the alleged offence. He submits that the petitioner is the owner of the aforesaid beauty parlour and he has got trade licence. He submits that the petitioner has been behind the bars for last 35 days and he is ready to cooperate in the investigation and therefore, prays for allowing him to go on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. He submits that there are incriminating materials available in the case diary and the statement of the victim girls was recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS who incriminated the petitioner in the offence alleged in the FIR. However, while deposing the statement before the Magistrate under Section 183 of the BNSS, the victim girls Page No.# 3/4 retracted from their earlier stand and have stated that they are engaged as beauticians at the beauty parlour and no incriminating statement is given against the present petitioner as alleged in the FIR. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and I have gone through the materials available on record including the case diary of Kokrajhar P.S. Case No. 164/2025. On perusal of the case diary, it appears that the victim girls in their statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS have not implicated the present petitioner in any manner, as alleged in the FIR. 7. In view of above aforesaid facts and also considering the period of detention undergone by the petitioner (35 days), this court is of the considered opinion that if the petitioner cooperates in the investigation, his custodial detention may not be necessary for fair completion of the investigation of Kokrajhar P.S. Case No. 164/2025. Accordingly, the petitioner named above is hereby allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with a suitable surety of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Elaka Magistrate with the following conditions:- (i) the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Police Officer within 7(seven) days from the date of this order and shall co-operate with the investigation; and (ii) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to the informant or to any other persons who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Investigating Officer or to any Court. Page No.# 4/4 8. With the above observations, this bail application is disposed of. 9. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant