Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010160962025 2025:GAU-AS:10928 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2384/2025 AZAHARUL ISLAM S/O- ABDUL MATIN. VILL.- CHENIMARI, P.O. AND P.S.- LAHORIGHAT, DIST.- MORIGAON, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:RAHIM UDDIN AHMED S/O- LATE ABDUL JABBAR. VILL.- AKABASTI BANGALI P.S.- CHARIDUAR DIST.- SONITPUR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M ALI, MR J. E. SARKAR,H R KHAN,MR J FIRDAUS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, SK ABDULLAH (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 18.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. M. Ali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also Page No.# 2/5 heard Mr. K.K. Parashar, learned Addl. Public prosecutor appearing for the State and Mr. SK Abdullah, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2. 2. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for releasing him on bail in connection with Chariduar P.S Case No. 105/2025 under Section 296/308(2)/319(2)/351(2)/77/79 of BNS read with Section 12 of POCSO Act read with Section 66(D)/67B IT Act. 3. The FIR dated 18.05.2025 lodged by the father of the victim reveals that his daughter had love relationship with the petitioner for about a year or so. However, their relationship broke and that since then, the petitioner had opened a fake account in the social media in the name of his daughter and uploaded obscene photographs in the said account. It was also alleged that the petitioner had demanded Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand) from his daughter by blackmailing her. 4. Mr. M. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the victim was engaged in a love relationship and the parents had decided for their marriage once the victim attains majority but then, the relationship broke and when the accused person was called by the parents of the victim to settle the issue, the petitioner came to know that an FIR was already lodged and he was arrested. He further submits that the allegations Page No.# 3/5 against the petitioner was not true. 5. Mr. K.K. Parashar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits on perusal of the case diary that the victim had stated in clear terms that they were in a relationship but after the break up, the petitioner had uploaded obscene photographs and messages through a fake account in the social media and had blackmailed her and as such, he prayed that no bail may be granted to the petitioner. 6. Mr. Sk. Abdullah, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 however submits that, there was a misunderstanding between the petitioner and the victim and that he has no objection to the grant of bail to the petitioner. 7. Heard the counsels for the petitioner and the respondent and have perused the case records. 8. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner and the victim were in a relationship and that the said relationship broke between them. The victim in her statement before the police had stated that when she and the petitioner were in a relationship, they had a fight amongst them and in that fight, both of them threatened each other that they would leave and in pursuance to the same, the victim stopped talking with the petitioner and that the petitioner on the pretext of giving money to her demanded it back with the threatening that he would upload the photos and videos in the social media. However, she did Page No.# 4/5 not give importance to those threatenings but she found that the petitioner had uploaded those photographs with the victim. In her statement before the Magistrate, she stated that she and the petitioner fought with each other and broke up and that the petitioner blackmailed that he would upload her photos in the social media which however she ignored, but she found the petitioner uploading the photos at the social media by opening a fake account in her name. 9. The accused was examined on 23.06.2025 and he stated before the police that he and the victim was in a relationship and that they fought with each other and he admitted that he out of anger uploaded the photographs in the social media. 10. It is also reflected in the case dairy that the statement of the witnesses were recorded and the investigation has reached to a final stage. It is also noticed that the petitioner has been inside the jail for 56 (fifty six) days. Since the investigation is almost over and there appears some inconsistencies in the statement of the victim, this Court is of the opinion to grant bail to the petitioner on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two (2) local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Sonitpur under the following conditions:- 1) He will not approach the victim nor go near her family Page No.# 5/5 members. 2) He will co-operate with the investigation and will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for. 3) He will not tamper with the evidence. 4) He will not leave the jurisdiction of the CJM, Sonitpur without his leave. 11. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant