Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010234012025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3513/2025 MUSTAFA HUSSAIN SON OF LATE MD. ABDUL MOTALEB RESIDENT OF VILL- GOHALIBHANGA P.S. GINGIA DIST. BISWANATH, ASSAM PIN-784184. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE LEARNED PP, ASSAM 2:MD. ABBAS ALI S/O AKAR ALI R/O VILL- GOHALI BHONGA BISWANATH P.S. JATIA DIST. BISWANATH ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. T SOM, MS. U HAZARIKA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. M K BROWN, Amicum Curiae, R2,MS. M K BROWN, (AMICUS CURIAE, R2),B BURAGOHAIN (R-2) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 19.12.2025 1. Heard Ms. T. Som, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam as well as Mr. B. Buragohain, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Ms. M. K. Brown, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No.2. 2. This application under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner namely, Mustafa Hussain, for the second time, in connection with the Special POCSO Case No.94/2024, pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, Biswanath. 3. The petitioner is languishing behind the bars since 22.07.2025. 4. On an earlier occasion, when the petitioner approached this Court, his prayer for bail was rejected by order dated 22.09.2025 in Bail Application No. 2693/2025. 5. While rejecting the bail application on that occasion, this Court observed that it may not be appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner without examination of the victim girl, considering the facts and circumstances of this case. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Special POCSO Case No.94/2024 was fixed before the Trial Court yesterday, i.e., on 18.12.2025. However, on that day, the victim was not examined and the next date is fixed on 29.12.2025, that too only for Page No.# 3/4 the production of the petitioner. 7. She submits that the petitioner himself surrendered before the Trial Court and he is ready to cooperate in trial and, therefore, his custodial detention may not be necessary. 8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage. He submits that while rejecting his bail application on the earlier occasion, there was a categorical observation made by this Court that the bail of the petitioner may be considered only after examination of the victim girl. 9. He further submits that the victim girl in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNS, 2023 has made implicating statements against the petitioner and the petitioner used to harass her even on streets. He, therefore, submits that if the petitioner is allowed to go on bail at this stage, there is every likelihood that the victim girl may be influenced by the present petitioner. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. 11. Though it is a fact, though on the basis of the records, it appears that the petitioner has been languishing behind the bars for last about 5 months. However, it is also relevant that the victim girl has made implicating statements against the petitioner and the offence involved in this case is also a heinous offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 12. Further, on the earlier occasion when the petitioner approached this Page No.# 4/4 Court seeking bail, there was a categorical observation in the bail rejection order that the prayer for bail of the petitioner may be considered only after examination of the victim girl. 13. Under such circumstances, this Court is reluctant to grant the bail to the petitioner at this stage. 14. The Trial Court is directed to make all endeavor to examine the victim girl as early as possible after examination of the victim girl, the petitioner may approach the trial court seeking regular bail, if so advised. 15. If such a bail application is filed, the court shall decide the same in accordance with law. 16. With the above observations this bail application is dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant