Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010160502025 2025:GAU-AS:10562 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2357/2025 SMT JUNALI BORAH S/O REBA BORAH R/O VILL- AMLAKHI ATI P.S. SOOTEA DIST. BISWANATH, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS N DEKA, MR SAURADEEP DEY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 11.08.2025 1. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS by which the petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Sootea Police Station P.S. Case No. 67/2025 registered under Section 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Page No.# 2/4 Act, 1956. 2. The FIR dated 16.06.2025 was lodged by the Sub-Inspector of the Sootea Police Station in which it was inter alia stated that in persuance to a secret information aboutsex trade, a search was conducted at the house of a co- accused namely Smt. RituSaikia andin the search, many items were found and seized. The police thereafter, conducted the investigation and in the same, it was found that Smt. RituSaikia along with her husband JuntiDebnath constructed a room behind their house and have encouraged young girls and married women into prosecution and in the process, they have earned money unlawfully. In the said FIR, 3 (three) accused persons were named i.e. Smt. RituSaikia, her husband JuntiDebnath and 1 (one) co-accused DigantaSaikia. 3. Further during investigation and during the interrogation of the said accused persons, the present petitioner was made the co-accused in the said case, and name being taken by the other co-accsued whose names finds place in the FIR. 4. Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and it was only that the co-accused had named the petitioner. He had also submitted that there is violation of the Section 15 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 which provides that only the Special Police Officer not below the rank of Inspector can lodge and investigate the case. Page No.# 3/4 5. However, he submitted that in the present case, the Sub-Inspector who is not the authorised officer has searched and investigated the case. However, he also has pointed out that later the investigation was handed over to the inspector of the Police Station. 6. It is reflected in the FIR, that it were the co-accused persons namely, RituSaikia, JuntiDebnath and DigantaSaikia who were said to have involved themselves in the unlawful sex trade which went on in a room constructed by the said accused persons. The name of the petitioner does not find place in the said FIR and that it was only in the statement of the co-accused i.e. the accused named in the FIR, the name of the petitioner pictured to the effect that she too was involved in the said case. It is not res-integra that statement of the co- accused is a very week piece of evidence. 7. Mr. K.K. Das, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted on the basis of the case diary that the accused persons had named the petitioner that she too was involved in the offence in question. He also stated that one independent witness who is however not the victim has stated that the petitioner was also involved in the said business. 8. I have heard the counsels for both the parties and have perused the case records. 9. It is reflected in the case diary that only on the basis of the statement of co- Page No.# 4/4 accused, the petitioner was arrested. Since the name of the petitioner was not reflectd in the FIR and her name was only raised during investigation and during the interrogation of the co-accused, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner may be granted bail on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with 2 (two) local sureties to the satisfaction of the learned Court under the following conditions:- 1) She will co-operate with the investigation of the case and will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for. 2) She will not temper with the evidence or influence the witnesses that were connected with the instant case. 3) She will not leave the jurisdiction of the CJM Court, BiswanathChariali without the leaveof the said Court. 10. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant