Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010257792025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3754/2025 SAJID AHMED S/O LATE SIRAJ UDDIN, RESIDNET OF VILLAGE TALTOLA, KANKARCHAK, PS KARIMGANJ, DIST SRIBHUMI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:NAZIM UDDIN S/O LATE TASIR UDDIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ALOMKHANI THAMUA PS NILAMBAZAR DIST SRIBHUMI ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R CHOUDHURY, Z HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR S DAS, AMICUS CURIAE FOR R-2,. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 16.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. H.R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned APP for the State of Assam and Mr. S. Dutta, learned Page No.# 2/3 Amicus Curiae for the respondent no. 2. 2. This is an application for bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, wherein the petitioner was arrested on 20.06.2025 in connection with Nilambazar PS Case No. 84/2025 under Sections 126(2)/75(2)/54/64 of BNSS read with Sections 4 and 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012, which culminated in Special Sessions (P) Case No. 59/2025 pending before the learned Special Judge, Sribhumi. 3. The scanned copy of the trial court records, as called for, has been received and considered by this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a young boy aged 18 years, and the FIR was lodged at the behest of certain individuals who bear animosity towards the petitioner’s family and have influenced the father of the victim to lodge the FIR. He has submitted the charge-sheet, which makes reference to the medical report of the minor victim, indicating that the occurrence of rape in the present case cannot be confirmed, and that it appears to be an attempt. He contends that, in the absence of any evidence of sexual assault, the petitioner may be granted the privilege of bail. 5. The learned APP and learned Amicus Curiae have objected to the petition, referring to the scanned copy of the trial court records. They submit that, as per the version of the victim recorded under Section 183, the victim has implicated the petitioner. Further, the trial is yet to proceed, and granting bail at this stage may prejudice the witnesses in the trial. 6. We have perused the contents of the scanned copy of the TCR and do not find this to be a fit case to grant bail at this stage. The petitioner, however, is Page No.# 3/3 at liberty in case of any further developments in the matter. 7. The bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant