Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010183092025 2025:GAU-AS:10971 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2670/2025 ASHOK SAHU S/O LATE RAM GOPAL SAHU R/O POKAJORA P.S. GARAMUR DIST. MAJULI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR J PAYENG, MS. SUSMITA DOLEY,MS A PAYENG Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 19-08-2025 Heard Mr. J. Payeng, the learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State respondent. Page No.# 2/3 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with prayer for bail as the petitioner is behind bars since 09.06.2025 in connection with Garamur P.S. Case No. 28/2025 u/s 64(1)/351(3) of BNS Act. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Payeng, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused/petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. His earlier bail petition was rejected by the Court only considering the fact that the case was charge-sheeted and direction was given to the petitioner to appear before the learned Trial Court below with an appropriate application. In pursuant to the said order the accused/petitioner filed an application before the learned Trial Court below. But, that has been rejected at the Court vide its order dated 06.08.2025. 4. Mr. Payeng further submitted that from the FIR itself it is seen that on three occasions there was an allegation of sexual assault on the victim. But, in spite of that there was no such FIR lodged by the victim and subsequently on 05.05.2025 there was a meeting held between the petitioner and the uncle of the victim for some land dispute. But, dispute could not be resolved in the said meeting and both the parties were directed to approach the Circle Officer. But, in the said meeting the uncle of the victim raised the issue of pregnancy of the victim and thereafter only an FIR was lodged on 04.06.2025 after one month of the said meeting. However, the accused/petitioner is in custody since last 09.06.2025. Considering the length of detention and other aspects of the case, the prayer of the petitioner may be allowed and he will appear before the learned Trial Court below on each and every date to be fixed and to contest the case accordingly. 5. Mr. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this Page No.# 3/3 regard that from the order dated 06.08.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Majulu it reveals that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected considering the incriminating materials available in the Case Diary as well as in the statement made by the victim. Accordingly, he submitted that scanned copy of the TCR be called for to know the facts of the case. 6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and other aspects of the case, vis-à-vis, the length of detention already undergone by the accused/petitioner, I find that further custodial detention may not be necessary for further investigation of the case. Accordingly, I find it is a fit case to enlarge the accused/petitioner on bail. 7. Accordingly, the accused/petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Majuli. The accused/petitioner, namely Ashok Sahu, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (ii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge, Majuli without prior permission. The Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant