Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010264092024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3796/2024 AZIZUR RAHMAN S/O MD. FATIK ALI, RESIDENT OF CHATALA, BARGHOPA, PS SARTHEBARI, DIST BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY PP ASSAM 2:NIBARAN MUSAHARY S/O LATE KHAGEN MUSAHARY RESIDENT OF NIZARAPAR PS PRAGJYOTISHPUR DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM 78102 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N MAHAJAN, MS. M. KHATUN,MR. D BORA,MR. P K DAS,MR. A CHAUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR D K BHATTACHARYYA, (AMICUS CURIAE, R- 2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 04.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. B. K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam as Page No.# 2/4 well as Mr. D. K. Bhattacharyya, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent No. 2. 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Azizur Rahman, who has been detained behind the bars since 12.10.2024 (for last 116 days) in connection with Sessions (Special) Case No. 282/2024. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 12.10.2024, the father of the victim girl had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Pragjyotishpur Police Station, inter alia, alleging that his daughter was subjected to forceful physical relationship by the present petitioner. Upon receipt of this FIR, Pragjyotishpur P.S. Case No. 115/2024 was registered and investigation was initiated. Ultimately, on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the present petitioner under Sections 137(2)/64(2)(m) of BNS read with Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 3(2)(v)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the charges under above mentioned provisions of law have already been framed against the petitioner on 10.12.2024. However, till date the victim has not yet been examined. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the victim and the petitioner were in a romantic relationship. He also submits that in the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, she has categorically stated that there was a love relationship between her and the petitioner for last two years. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the Page No.# 3/4 petitioner has been detained behind the bars for last 116 days and considering the period of detention, he may be allowed to go on bail. He also submits that the petitioner is ready to cooperate in the trial. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for respondent No. 2 has submitted that though the petitioner was not implicated by the victim in her statement, which was recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, however, the fact remains that she was a minor at the time when the alleged offence was committed and there is a possibility of influencing the witness/victim by the petitioner, if he is allowed to go on bail. Hence, they vehemently oppose the release of the petitioner on bail. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the materials available on record, including the scanned copy of the case record, which was requisitioned in connection with this case. 8. Though, in the FIR lodged by the father of the victim girl, it is alleged that the victim was subjected to forceful sexual intercourse by the present petitioner. However, in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS before the Magistrate, the victim has relied the same and has stated that she was having consensual affair with the present petitioner for last two years. The petitioner has been detained behind the bars for last 116 days. 9. Considering the nature of this case as well as considering the period of detention undergone, this Court is of considered opinion that if some conditions are imposed so as to ensure that the petitioner does not influence the victim girl or the other witnesses in any manner before their deposition is recorded in the Page No.# 4/4 trial before the Trial Court, his further custodial detention would be unnecessary. 10. In view of above, the above named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with one seurity of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with following conditions:- (i) That the petitioner shall not directly and indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to the victim girl or to any other listed prosecution witness who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the victim girl or such persons from deposing before the Trial Court; (ii) That the petitioner shall not meet the victim girl before her statement is recorded in the trial as procesution witness; (iii) That the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial; 11. Any violation of the aforesaid condition would be good ground for cancellation of bail granted to the present petitioner. 12. With above observation, this bail application is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant