Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010255732025 2025:GAU-AS:17093 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3724/2025 OMAR ALI S/O MD. AJIJUL HOQUE, R/O VILL. BEGARKASH, P.S. DHULA, DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SABURA KHATUN W/O ALI HUSSAIN R/O VILL. BEGARKASH P.S. DHULA DIST. DARRANG ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M HOQUE, MS J BEGUM,MR. R A CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR K THAKUR(R-2),MR D MEDHI (R-2) BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 10.12.2025 Heard Mr M Hoque, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr D P Page No.# 2/3 Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam; and Mr K Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2. 2. The petitioner in this case had been arrested on 26.10.2024 in connection with Special (POCSO) Case NO. 19/2025, under Section 65(2) of the BNS Act, 2023, read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, arising out of Dhula PS Case No. 152/2024, pending before the learned Special Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai. 3. The FIR indicated that the mother of the 6-year-old victim had raised allegations against the petitioner herein that the petitioner herein had abused the victim child after the child had a quarrel with the son of the accused. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that already the evidence of the child and the informant have been taken. There are total 11 numbers of prosecution witnesses, out of which, 5 have already been examined. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the vital witnesses have been examined, there is no requirement of the petitioner to continue behind bars, as there is no chance of influencing or hampering and tampering with the evidence of either the victim or the informant. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 have submitted that 6 witnesses still remain to be examined, out of which, only 3 are official witnesses and release of the petitioner at this point of time may allow him to influence the other witnesses, whose examination is yet to be conducted. 6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. We have also gone through the order dated 04.09.2025, passed by the learned Trial Court in Special (POCSO) Case No. 19 of 2025. 7. The Trial Court Records have also been received. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the manner in which the trial is proceeding, we do not deem it fit to allow the petitioner, the privilege of bail at this point of time. Accordingly, this bail petition is rejected. The petitioner shall, Page No.# 3/3 however, be at liberty to approach this Court again, after the evidence of the prosecution is closed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant