Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010191392025 2025:GAU-AS:12137 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2779/2025 SANIDUL ISLAM S/O CHAKADDESH ALI R/O HOUSE NO. 645, MASJID GALI INDRAPUR, GUWAHATI-781005, IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR TO BE REP.BY THE LEARNED PP, ASSAM 2:SMTI. ALO BISWAS W/O LATE SUKUMAR BISWAS HOUSE NO. 39 L.K. R.B. PATH NABIN NAGAR GUWAHATI-781021 DIST. KAMRUP (METRO) ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A I ALI, MR. T PEGU,MR. M ISLAM,H KULI,MR. SURAJIT DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. M BORAH (R-2),N RAHMAN(R-2) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 05.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. S. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam as well as Mr. N. Rahman, the learned counsel for the informant/respondent No. 2. 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sanidul Islam, who has been detained behind the bars since 12.08.2025 in connection with Geeta Nagar P.S. Case No. 62/2025 under Section 65(1) of BNS, 2023 read with Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 12.08.2025, the mother of the victim girl had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Geeta Nagar Police Station inter alia, alleging that on that day, when the informant went to the house of other people for tea, leaving her daughter (victim) in her residence, after returning to the house, she found the door was locked from the inside. 4. It is stated in the FIR that the informant knocked the door on numbers of time and called out for her daughter on numbers of time. However, when she did not responded the informant called the landlord and landlady. Thereafter, the victim girl opened the door and the petitioner was found inside the house. 5. Later on, some of the neighbours called police and police took away the petitioner from their house. It is stated in the FIR that, thereafter, the victim girl told the informant that the petitioner has committed forceful sexual physical Page No.# 3/4 relationship. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was having a romantic relationship with the victim girl and they were there in the house in the absence of the mother of the victim. However, no physical relationship was made on that day. 7. He submits that the FIR has been lodged by the informant under the pressure of neighbours. He also submits that the petitioner is ready to co- operate in the investigation. 8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public prosecutor has produced the Case Diary of Geeta Nagar P.S. Case No. 62/2025 and has submitted that the victim had implicated the petitioner in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNS, 2023 of having subjected her to physical intercourse. However, he fairly submits that in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNS, 2023, she had not stated so. 9. He further submits that on perusal of the medical report of the victim girl, it appears that she refused her medical examination. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the informant submits that the informant is the mother of the victim girl and she has no objection if the petitioner is granted bail as she came to know that the petitioner and the victim girl were in a romantic relationship. 11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. Though this case has been registered under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 as well as under Section 65 of the BNS, 2023, however, apart from statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 180 of BNSS, 2023 which she has herself contradicted while giving statement under Section 183 of BNSS, 2023, there is nothing to indicate that there was a penetrative sexual assault. Page No.# 4/4 Moreover, considering the fact that the informant is not objected to the grant of bail of the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that if sufficient conditions are imposed, so as to prevent the petitioner from influencing the victim girl or giving any threat to her, his custodial detention may not be necessary for fair completion of the investigation of the aforesaid case. 12. In view of the above, the above-mentioned petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with a suitable surety of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, POCSO, Kamrup (M) with following conditions:- (i) the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Police Officer and shall co-operate with the investigation; (ii) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to the informant or to any other person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Investigating Officer or to any Court. 13. This bail application is accordingly disposed of. 14. Send back to the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant