Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040006602025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./85/2025 Ariful Islam Uncle of the alleged accused, presently residing at Nyorch, PO and PS Doimukh, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh and permanent resident of Fatehpur, Lakhimpur District, Assam. VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Mitem Ratan, Gujusa Yobin,Bate Joel Koyu Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, -BEFORE- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 02.05.2025 Heard Mr. M. Ratan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. L. Hage, learned Addl. PP for the State. 2. The present application is filed for modification of bail condition Page No.# 2/3 imposed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Yupia in BA No. 47/2025 in connection with ITA WPS P.S. Case No. 57/2024, whereby a condition was imposed that the petitioner shall furnish two sureties, out of which one of the sureties shall be from State of Arunachal Pradesh inasmuch as, it is the case of the petitioner that he is not a resident of State of Arunachal Pradesh and therefore, he is not in a position to fulfil such a condition. Accordingly, though the petitioner has been granted bail, the petitioner is still in jail since 19.10.2024. 3. It is seen that the petitioner was arrested on 19.10.2024, in connection with ITA WPS P.S. Case No. 57/2024 under Section 137 of BNS and read with Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012. It was alleged in the FIR that on 11.10.2024 at midnight, the accused had kidnapped the daughter of the informant and had sexual relationship with her and the girl is stated to be aged about 17 years old. 4. Be that, as it may, during the statutory period when the investigating authority could not file the Charge-Sheet/ Final Form, the petitioner was granted default bail by order dated 18.01.2025 by the learned Special Judge (POCSO) at Yupia. However, till date, the petitioner is in jail custody as he could not fulfil the condition of a local surety as imposed in the bail order dated 18.01.2025. It is seen that the bail order was passed way back on 18.01.2025 and till date, the petitioner is still languishing in the jail custody as he could not furnish a local surety. 5. It would be a travesty of justice, if the petitioner is unable to secure Page No.# 3/3 benefits of bail order for his inability to furnish a local surety. In the considered opinion of this Court such condition shall infringe the right of the petitioner granted under Article 21 of the Constitution of India who continues to be in custody when he was granted default bail and he being not a local person could not submit a local surety. 6. Having considered the circumstances and in the given facts of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner be released on bail without insisting on a local surety in terms of the Special Court’s bail order dated 18.01.2025. 7. With the aforesaid observation, this criminal petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant