Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010235362025 2025:GAU-AS:17611 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3452/2025 JEHERUL ALI ALIAS KENTA ALIAS JAHUR ALI SON OF ABDUL HUSSAIN, PERMANENT R/O KHASABHUTTI, BESIMARI, P.S. DALGAON, DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT KERAKUCHI, NEAR SACHAN, P.S. HATIGAON, DIST. KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM, PIN-781038. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PP, ASSAM 2:JAHANGIR ALAM SON OF AZIBAR RAHMAN R/O BALIJAN PATH HATIGAON GUWAHATI EAST ASSAM P.O./P.S. HATIGAON PIN-781038 PH. NO. 813289841 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M AHMED, MS S AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. S DAS, AMICUS CURIAE FOR R-2 Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 18.12.2025 Heard Mr. M. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused- applicant. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, representing the State respondent as well as Mr. S. Das, learned Amicus Curiae, representing the respondent no. 2/informant. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for granting bail to the accused-applicant in connection with Sessions’ Special Case No. 178/2025, Charge-sheeted under Sections87/3(5) of the BNS, 2023, read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act. 3. The gist of the allegation as narrated in the FIR dated 10.06.2025, lodged by the informant (victim’s father) is that the victim girl, who is a minor, had been missing at around 7:00 PM on 09.06.2025. Accordingly, the police was intimated by the informant at Hatigaon Police Station, however, at about 3:45 AM in the morning, his two neighbours, namely, Ramjan and Kader returned his daughter to him. On being asked, his daughter revealed that the accused-applicant and one Ali forcibly took her with their 407 vehicle from Balijan Path to a secluded place where the accused-applicant had sexually assaulted and raped her. Thereafter, in the morning time, she was dropped on the road by the accused-applicant along with one Ali. 4. TCR in the instant case has been received and produced before this Court. 5. The learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that there are various discrepancies in the FIR as well as in the depositions of the victim that has been recorded before the Trial Court. The learned counsel further submits that the accused- applicant is a 23 years old boy and has been behind the bar for the last 188 days. The learned counsel further submits that the medical report also do not support the Page No.# 3/3 prosecution’s case. In view of the aforesaid, the learned counsel for the accused- applicant submits that taking into account the age of the accused-applicant and the fact that he is behind bar since 188 days; the discrepancies in the FIR as well as the depositions of the victim, the accused-applicant should be granted bail at this stage. 6. Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. P.P., on the other hand, submits that there are sufficient materials, prima facie, indicating involvement of the accused-applicant in the incident that has been alleged in the FIR. In view of the aforesaid, he submits that at this stage, since the involvement of the accused-applicant in the alleged offence is yet to be examined, this Court should not grant bail to the accused-applicant. 7. Mr. S. Das, learned Amicus Curiae, representing the respondent no. 2 also supported the statement made by the learned Addl. P.P. 8. This Court has gone through the materials brought before this Court and the records available in the TCR as well as heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 9. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court is of the considered view that there are, prima facie, incriminating materials against the accused-applicant and therefore, this is not a fit case wherein, the accused-applicant should be granted bail. 10. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid prima facie findings, the instant bail application is disposed of as rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant