Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010184972025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2693/2025 MUSTAFA HUSSAIN SON OF LATE MD. ABDUL MOTALEB R/O VILL- GOHALIBHANGA PO.S. GINGLA DIST. BISWANATH, ASSAM PIN-784184. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PP, ASSAM 2:ABBAS ALI S/O LT. AKAR ALI R/O GOHALI BHANGA MOUZA BISWANATH PIN- 784176 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. T SOM, MS. U HAZARIKA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. M K BROWN, (AMICUS CURIAE, R2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 22.09 .2025 1. Heard Ms. T Som, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Page No.# 2/3 Sarma, learned Addl. P.P. for the State as well as Ms. M.K. Brown appearing for the respondent No.2. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner namely Mustafa Hussain who has been detained behind the bar since 22.07.2025 in connection with Gingia PS Case No. 80/2024 under Section 376 IPC R/W Section 6 of POCSO Act corresponding to Special POCSO Case No. 94/2024 pending before the Court of the learned Special Judge, Biswanath. 3. The gist of acquisition in this case is that the father of the victim girl had lodged an FIR before the Superintendent of Police, Biswanath, inter alia alleging that the present petitioner with a promise to marry the daughter of the informant (victim girl) had subjected her to forceful penetrative sex as a result of which she became pregnant. It is also alleged in the FIR that the victim girl was forced to abort her pregnancy by the petitioner. However, the petitioner married another girl. It is also alleged in the FIR that on 26.09.2024 the victim girl was assaulted by the petitioner and his family members. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocence and he is no way involved in the offences alleged in the FIR. He further submits that in the aforesaid case the charge sheet has already been laid and considering the fact that the investigation has already been completed the custodial detention of the petitioner may not be necessary for fair completion of the investigation. 5. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR has been lodged delayedly and the inordinate delay has not been explained, which creates doubt regarding the veracity of the FIR. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner does not have any Page No.# 3/3 criminal background or antecedents and he is ready to cooperate in the trial, hence he may be allowed to go on bail. 6. On the other hand the learned Addl. P. P. and learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No.2 has submitted that there are sufficient incriminating materials available against the petitioner in the case record and the victim girl is yet to be examined as a prosecution witness in the trial. Therefore, they prayed that the bail application be rejected. 7. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case record. In the above noted case though the charge sheet has already been laid however, the victim girl is yet to be examined as a prosecution witness and considering the nature of the offence involved in this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it may not be appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner without examination of the victim girl as a prosecution witness. This Court is therefore, reluctant to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. The petitioner may approach the trial Court for regular bail after examination of the victim girl as a prosecution witness in the aforesaid pending trial. 8. With the above observation this bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant