Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010179702025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Bail Appln./2673/2025 AMINUL ISLAM SON OF ABDUS SATTAR R/O VILL- KATARIHARA P.S. LAKHIPUR DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-780317. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REP. BY THE PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MD A RAHMAN Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 10.09.2025 Heard Mr. A. Rahman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. This application has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for granting bail to the Page No.# 2/3 accused petitioner, namely Aminul Islam, in respect of Dispur P.S. Case No. 604/2025 under Section 143(3)/144(2) of BNS, 2023 read with Section 5(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Case diary is received. Perused the same. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present petitioner is a driver by profession and on the day of the incident, two girls hired his vehicle and he dropped the girls to their destination and thereafter, on the basis of some false information, the police arrested the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is innocent and no way connected with the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated in this case. More so, there is no material to show that the accused petitioner used any force or threat to procure or induce the women which is also one of the essential ingredient to fulfill Section 5(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and that apart, the victims are also major and there is no allegations of procurement of any minor girls for prostitution. He further submits that the accused petitioner was also on police remand for three days and after completion of the police remand, he was not further interrogated by the I/O and was in judicial custody since last 52 days. He also submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to extent his cooperation in further investigation of the case, if he is provided with the privilege of bail. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner in the case diary, who is involved in supplying the girls for immoral trafficking and he basically targeted the poor girls and he also engaged himself in arranging the customers for the prostitution. He further submits that the present petitioner along with the co-accused tried to contact some poor girls and on the pretext of giving jobs in beauty parlour and some other institution, they used those girls for the prostitution purpose. Accordingly, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner and from the statement made by the victims also, it is seen that the poor girls were targeted and they were forced to go for prostitution. Accordingly, he raised objection in grating bail to the petitioner. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and also perused the case diary. It is seen that there are some incriminating materials against the present petitioners. However, considering the materials in the case diary and the length of detention already undergone by the petitioner, I find that further custodial detention may not be necessary for the purpose of investigation Page No.# 3/3 of the case. Accordingly, I find it a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the present petitioner. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) only with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M), the accused petitioner named above be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:- i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required; ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. iii) That the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned CJM, Kamrup(M) without prior permission. In terms of the above, the bail application stands disposed of. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant