Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010180522025 2025:GAU-AS:15266 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2653/2025 NAJIM UDDIN SON OF LATE NABI HUSSAIN, RESIDENT OF BHANGAMANDIR KARHANA PATHER, P.S DHEKIAJULI, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. 2:HALANI KHATUN WIFE OF MD. KAJIMUDDIN ALI RESIDENT OF BHANGAMANDIR KARHANA PATHER PS- DHEKIAJULI DIST- SONITPUR ASSAM-78411 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R BHUYAN, MR M KHAN,MR S ABDULLAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR D K BHATTACHARYYA, (AMICUS CURIAE, R- 2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER 12.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the accused applicant Page No.# 2/3 as well as Mr. K. K. Das, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State respondent. 2. This petition under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the accused-applicant, namely, Najim Uddin, praying for grant of bail in connection with Special POCSO Case No.24/2025 pending before the court of learned Special Judge (POCSO), Sonitpur, Tezpur vide Dhekiajuli PS Case No. 02/2025 (GR Case No. 110/2025) under Sections 64(2)(k) R/W Section 4(1) POCSO Act, 2012. 3. Case diary as called for is received. 4. The gist of allegation as has been narrated in the FIR dated 03.01.2025 is that on 12.01.2025 at about 12 pm the informant and the mother of the alleged victim went to a tea garden near the village for collecting fire wood then the accused/applicant grabbed the victim and forcefully raped her. It was also alleged that the accused as well as the mother of the victim were not mentally and physically well. On receipt of the FIR police have registered the aforementioned case against the accused applicant. 5. Learned counsel for the accused applicant submits that the accused applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by creating false story. He further submits that as per the medical report there was no sign of any sexual intercourse on the victim. He further submits that the accused applicant is aged about 69 years who was arrested on 03.01.2025 and since then he is in judicial custody. In view of the length of detention was well as taking into account the advanced age, his bail prayer may be considered. 6. Mr. K. K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary before this Court and submits that there are sufficient incriminating material against the accused applicant in the case diary. He submits that it is not a fit case Page No.# 3/3 where the accused applicant should be granted the privilege of bail. 7. This Court has gone through the materials brought before this Court as well as the case diary submitted and also heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. This Court is of the opinion 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 at this stage. 8. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected and disposed of. 9. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant