Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010178502025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2615/2025 RAKIBUL ALI S/O- SURMAN ALI, R/O- VILL- SUAPATA PART III, BILASIPARA, DIST.- DHUBRI, CURRENTLY RESIDING IN VILL- ANDUJHAR PART- I, P.S AND DIST.- KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE P.P. ASSAM. 2:EUSUF ALI SK SON OF SABDER ALI SK R/O VILLAGE SUAPATA PT II P.S. CHAPAR DIST. DHUBRI ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P K DAS, MR. M BARUAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. P DAS, AMICUS CURIAE FOR R-2,MR. M ALOM (R-2) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 26.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. P.K Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam and Ms. P Das, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2. 2. This is an application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner Rakibul Ali in connection with Kokrajhar PS Case No. 183/2024 under Section 376(1)/506 of the IPC R/W Section 6 of POCSO Act. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that an FIR was lodged by the father of the victim on 23/08/2024 at around 5.20 pm whereby the complaint stated that her daughter who was allegedly sexually assaulted seven months prior when she was 17 years old. The complainant stated that the victim was studying while residing at her father-in-law Sayed Ali's house when an unidentified accused person trespassed into the residence during daytime hours, committed rape, and threatened her with consequences if she disclosed the incident. The victim remained silent about the assault until after her marriage on May 16, 2024, when a medical examination at St. Augustine Hospital revealed she was 26 weeks and 1 day pregnant, prompting her to disclose the incident. As a result of these circumstances, the victim's in-laws have refused to continue the marital relationship, and the complainant reports that both the victim and her family have suffered loss of social standing and self-respect due to the incident. Page No.# 3/4 4. The petitioner was arrested and forwarded to the Ld. Special Judge, Kokrajhar on 15.05.2025. 5. The present case has been charge-sheeted and the trial is underway. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer for bail as the victim is yet to be examined and it is apprehended that the accused may try to intimidate the victim. Although the victim is yet to be examined and the petitioner has spent 134 days behind bars, Mr. P.K Das, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the Court’s attention to the notice issued under Section 47 of BNSS, 2023 as well as the notice under Section 48 of BNSS, 2023. 7. On perusal of the aforesaid notices it is seen that under the column grounds of arrest the following have been stated : (i) The arrested accused person FIR named accused. (ii) During investigation, sufficient evidences found against the below noted accused person. (iii) If the accused person is not forwarded to your kind judicial custody then he may escape from the locality and will try to hide himself to evade police arrest. (iv) If he is not forwarded to the judicial custody then a Law and Order situation may arise at that locality. 8. A bare perusal of the same would show that the aforesaid only constitute the reasons for arrest and not the grounds of arrest as has been clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on a number of occasions. Furthermore, a perusal of the order of Ld. Magistrate dated Page No.# 4/4 14.05.2025 passed on the date of first production of the accused would indicate that he was not represented by any advocate and only intimation was given to the Chief LADC, Kokrajhar to represent the accused. Therefore, the accused also suffered demonstratable prejudice as he was not effectively represented and the grounds of arrest were also not made known to the accused. 9. Having regard to the above as well as in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prabin Purkayastha vs. State reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 and Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 269, the prayer for bail is allowed. 10. The petitioner Rakibul Ali is allowed to go on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with 2(two) sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Ld. Trial Court in connection with the aforesaid case. 11. It is further provided that the accused/petitioner shall not try to contact or influence the victim or the other witnesses in any manner and shall regularly participate in the trial. 12. Bail petition stands allowed accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant