Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010243702024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3539/2024 MAJIBUR RAHMAN S/O LATE ABDUL AHMED VILL- 80 NO. GRANT DANGIBEEL P.S. BIHPURIA DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:MD. JAFAR ALI S/O LATE MD. KASEM ALI R/O VILL- 1 NO. BAGARI HARMOTI P.S. LALUK DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-78416 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M AHMED, B DAS,MRS S RAHANA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. I U CHOWDHURY (R-2) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 05.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. A.M. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S.H. Bora, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam as well as Mr. I.U. Chowdhury, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Md. Majibur Rahman, who has been detained behind the bars since 05.03.2024 (for last 337 days), in Special(P) Case No. 36/2024, under Section 342/366A of the IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 pending before the Court of the learned Special Judge(POCSO), Lakhimpur. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 04.03.2024, the father of the victim girl had lodged an FIR before the In-Charge of Harmoti Police Outpost inter-alia, alleging that his daughter was kidnapped by the present petitioner and she was kept in his rented house, however, when the daughter came to know that the petitioner is a married person she objected to him. 4. On receipt of the said FIR, Laluk P.S. Case No. 31/2024 was registered and investigation was initiated. Ultimately, on completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against the present petitioner and the Page No.# 3/4 trial is presently going on in the Court of learned Special Judge (POCSO), Lakhimpur. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the relationship between the petitioner and the victim girl was of consensual nature. He also submits that out of nine listed prosecution witnesses, two material witnesses, including the victim and the informant have already been examined. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that considering the fact that the material witnesses are already examined and also considering the fact of long detention of the present petitioner, he may be allowed to go on bail. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to co-operate in the trial. 7. On the other hand, Ms. S.H. Bora, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as Mr. I.U. Chowdhury, the learned counsel for the victim girl have opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the victim was minor on the death of the alleged offence and only three witnesses have been examined. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and have gone through the materials available on record. It appears that the material witness, namely, the victim and the informant as well as the doctor, who conducted the medical examination of the victim girl have already been examined in this case. It also appears that the petitioner is languishing behind the bars since last 337 days and out of nine listed witnesses six are yet to be examined. Page No.# 4/4 9. Considering, the period of detention undergone by the petitioner as well as considering the fact that the victim and the informant have been examined by the Trial Court, the further custodial detention of the petitioner does not appear to be necessary for fair completion of trial, if he co-operates in the trial. 10. In view of the above, the above-named petitioner is hereby allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with a suitable surety of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Lakhimpur, with the following conditions:- (a) that the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as and when so required by the Trial Court and shall co-operate in the trial; (b) 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 such person from deposing against the petitioner in the ensuing trial before the Trial Court. (c) that the Trial Court may impose any additional condition for bail during trial if it deems fit to do so, to procure regular attendance of the petitioner during trial. 11. With the above observations, this bail application is hereby disposed of. 12. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant