Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010244552024 2025:GAU-AS:10795 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3560/2024 AKHTAR HUSSAIN @ AKATAR HUSSAIN S/O ALIMUDDIN R/O VILL- ALOMGANJ PART-IX, P.S. GOURIPUR, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:MORIOM BEGOM W/O ASRAF ALI R/O VILL- CHIRAKHOWA PART-IV P.S. FAKIRGANJ DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783339 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A MONDAL, MR. A ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. N MAHAJAN, (AMICUS CURIAE, R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Page No.# 2/5 13.08.2025 Heard Mr. M. A. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. K. Parashar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent. Also heard Mr. N. Mahajan, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent No.2. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 by which the petitioner, viz., Akhtar Hussain @ Akatar Hussain has prayed for bail in connection with Kazigaon Police Station Case No.95/2023 registered under Sections 363/368/302/376(3) of the IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 3. The F.I.R. dated 20.12.2023 reflects that the daughter of the informant, who was minor and whose marriage was fixed with the petitioner, was taken by the petitioner on 13.12.2024 to his house. It was stated in the F.I.R. that the parents of both the parties had decided that the petitioner and the victim would get married but since the victim was minor, the marriage was postponed and that the petitioner and the victim used to go to each other’s place and that on 13.12.2023 the victim went to the petitioner’s house. It was stated in the F.I.R. that thereafter a news on 16.12.2023 was seen by the informant in which it was reflected that a dead-body was recovered and seeing the photo the parents of the victim recognized that she was their daughter. In the said F.I.R. the informant has alleged that they suspect the petitioner to have killed their daughter. 4. In pursuance to the said F.I.R., the petitioner was arrested on . 09.05.2024. Thereafter, on completion of the investigation, the police submitted Page No.# 3/5 the charge-sheet on 31.07.2024. Charges were framed by the Trial Court on 28.08.2024 and presently the trial is on and the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 2 out of the 23 witnesses were examined. 5. Mr. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been inside the jail for more than a year and till date only two witnesses were examined and that the petitioner may be released on bail in the said facts of the case. 6. Mr. K. K. Parashar, learned Addl. P.P. submits that the witnesses who were examined by the Trial Court deposed about the body of the victim being recovered and that one of the said witnesses i.e. PW-1 has stated that it was the petitioner who led to the recovery of the body which was found in hanging condition from a tree. He further submits that the post-mortem report reflects that there are injuries on the private parts of the victim and as such, he submits that it is the petitioner who is involved in the offence in question and that no bail may be granted to him. 7. Mr. N. Mahajan, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent No.2 by supporting the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor further stated that because of the injuries in the private parts and leading to the discovery of the body by the petitioner, no bail may be granted to the petitioner. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 9. It is noticed that the instant case rests on circumstantial evidence and Page No.# 4/5 one of the circumstance, as stated by PW-1, is leading to recovery of the body by the petitioner. Further the petitioner is incarcerated for more than a year and till date only two witnesses were examined. It is also noticed that from the date of framing of charge till the examination of PW-1, which was done on 18.01.2025, almost six months had gone by and till date only two witnesses were examined. Further, in the statement of PW-1 it is reflected that the said witness deposed only about leading to recovery of the body of the victim by the accused. In the statement of PW-2 it is found that the PW-2 stated about the body being recovered which was found hanging in a tree in their village near the Petrol Pump. These two witnesses have not stated anything about the complicity of the petitioner in the said case. However, 21 numbers of more witnesses are yet to be examined by the Trial Court. 10. In view of the time taken in disposal of the instant case, this Court finds it fit to release the petitioner on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with two local sureties, one being a Government servant, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court under the following conditions :- 1) That the petitioner will attend the Trial Court as and when called for. 2) That he will not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court without the permission of the said Court. 3) That he will not approach the victim’s family or anyone connected with the case. Page No.# 5/5 11. The Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant