Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010211542025 2025:GAU-AS:15619 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3051/2025 SAHERA KHATUN AND 2 ORS C/O MUKTAR ALI VILL- KAYEMARI, P.S. BAGHBARI, P.O. STITOLI, PIN- 781308, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM 2: GAFUR ALI C/O AJAHAR ALI VILL- ALIPUR P.O. SITULI P.S. BAGHBAR PIN-781308 DIST. BARPETA ASSAM 3: MARJINA KHATUN C/O LOKMAN HUSSAIN VILL- ISLAMPUR P.O. KADONG PIN-781314 DIST. BARPETA ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:GIAS UDDIN S/O OMAR ALI VILL- GURALA P.S. BAGHBAR P.O.SITOLI DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781308 Page No.# 2/6 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J AHMED, R KHANOM,MR. R ISLAM,H G DAISY,R BEGUM,MS A HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. S DAS, AMICUS CURIAE FOR R-2 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 18-11-2025 Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the accused applicants. Also heard Ms. N. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as Mr. S. Das, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No. 2. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused applicants, in connection with Special POCSO Case No. 24/2022, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Barpeta under Sections 365/342/376/34 IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act (arising out of Baghbar P.S. Case No. 154/2012 under Sections 365/376/326/379/34 of the IPC). 3. An FIR was on 15.11.2012, by the informant alleging that when his minor daughter was alone at home, she was given a paan mixed with certain chemicals by the accused applicant No. 1. After having the paan, when the minor girl became unconscious, she was taken to a different place by kidnapping her by the accused applicants along with some other persons and thereafter, the accused Nos. 2, 5 and 6 had raped her on several occasions. It was also alleged that the accused Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 7 collected money from several clients by allowing them to have sex with the minor girl. After some Page No.# 3/6 dates, with the help of an old lady, who was a resident of that place, the minor girl somehow managed to escape and came home. 4. On filing of FIR, the Police registered the Baghbar P.S. Case No. 154/2012 under Sections 365/376/326/379/34 of the IPC. After investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet, being Charge-Sheet No. 137/2021, dated 11.07.2021, wherein the accused applicants Nos. 2 and 3 along with some other were shown absconding. 5. It is seen from the record that accused applicant No. 1, i.e. Sahera Khatun, was arrested and she was, subsequently, released on bail. On 14.02.2022, the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Barpeta issued Non-bailable Warrant of Arrest (NBWA for short) against the accused Nos. 2, 3 and two other accused persons. It is also seen from the record that on 26.12.2024, the learned Special Judge (POCSO), issued NBWA against the accused applicant No. 1, due to the fact that she failed to appear before the Trial Court on many occasions. In view of the issuance of the NBWA, the accused applicant Nos. 1 and 3 were arrested on 22.06.2025 and the accused applicant No. 2 was arrested on 24.06.2025 and since then, they are behind the bar for more than 145 days. 6. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the accused applicants submits that the accused applicant Nos. 2 and 3 were shown as absconder due to the fact that the summons could not be served upon them as they have shifted their residence to an adjacent village due to erosion. Therefore, he submits that in view of non-receipt of summons, the accused applicant Nos. 2 and 3 could not appear before the Trial Court. In so far as the accused applicant No. 1 is concerned, the learned counsel submits that though she was granted bail, due to some unavoidable circumstances, she could not be present before the Trial Court and the bail granted to her was recalled. Since, she has already spent Page No.# 4/6 more than 145 days behind the bar and she is to fully cooperate with the Trial, she may be allowed to go on bail. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that two of the accused persons, who have been similarly charged under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, namely, Mahur Uddin @ Mahir Uddin and Jamal Thikadar, who had been declared as proclaimed absconder, later appeared before the Trial Court and the learned Trial Court has already granted bails to them on 04.08.2025. Learned counsel further submits that the bail applications of the present accused applicants were rejected on 21.07.2025 by the learned Trial Court. He submits that trial is going on at a reasonable speed and the evidence of the victim as well as the informant have already been recorded by the Trial Court. In view of the aforesaid facts and in view of the fact that the two of the co-accused persons have already been granted bail by the learned Trial Court, he prays that the accused applicants should also be granted bail, taking into account their long detention behind the bar. He submits that further custodial detention of the accused applicants is not at all necessary at this stage and accused applicants, if granted bail, will fully cooperate with the trial proceedings of the Court. 8. Ms. N. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that other than the victim and the informant, none of the witnesses have been examined by the Trial Court and looking into the conduct of the accused applicants that though one was given privilege of bail, failed to appear before the Trial Court and other two being declared as absconder, this Court should not grant bail to the accused applicants at this stage. 9. Mr. S. Das, learned Amicus Curiae for the informant submits that the victim has clearly implicated the involvement of the accused applicants in the instant case, however, he submits that taking into consideration the long detention of Page No.# 5/6 the accused applicants, this Court may consider the instant bail application as it deem fit. 10. This Court has gone through the materials available on record and considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 11. After considering the matter in it’s entirety and taking into the fact that summons on the accused applicants Nos. 2 and 3 were never executed and also taking into the fact that they have already spent more than 145 days behind the bar, this Court is of the considered view that the accused applicant Nos. 2 and 3 should be allowed to go on bail. As far as the accused No. 1 is concerned, taking into the fact that the accused applicant No. 1 is a lady and she has spent more than 145 days behind the bar after being arrested again, this Court is of the view that further custodial detention may not be required. 12. In view of the aforesaid prima facie finding, the accused applicants are directed to be released on bail forthwith, on furnishing of bail bonds of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) each, with one surety of like nature each to the satisfaction of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Barpeta, subject to the following conditions: i. that the accused applicants shall regularly appear before the Trial Court and cooperate with the trial proceedings; ii. that the accused applicants shall not indulge in any activities of getting in touch with the victim as well as the informant of the instant case; iii. that the accused applicants shall not try to hamper or tamper with the investigation by directly or indirectly influencing any of Page No.# 6/6 witnesses. 13. In view of the aforesaid, the instant bail application stands disposed of as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant