Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010013412025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./191/2025 AKHIDUL ISLAM S/OJAKIR HUSSAIN R/O VILL-SHILGHAGRI P.S.MANIKPUR, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:RUKSANA KHATUN D/O SHAHA ALOM R/O VILL- KAWATIKA P.S.BIJNI DIST. CHIRANG ASSAM PIN-783390 PH. 789620484 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M KHAN, MS J AKTAR,MR A K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. D. DEVI(R-2),MS CHITRALEKHA DAS(R- 2),MR. K R PATGIRI (R-2) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 06.02.2025 Heard Mr. M.Khan, learned counsel for the accused. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional P.P. for the State respondent and Mr. K.R. Patgiri, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is preferred by accused, Akhidul Islam, who has been languishing in jail hazot, in connection with Mankipur P.S. Case No. 10/2025, under Section 363/493/376/506 of IPC, read with Section 6 of POCSO Act, for grant of bail. 3. It is to be noted here that, above noted case has been registered on the basis of one FIR, lodged by the informant cum victim Smti (x), name withheld on 12.01.2025. 4. The allegation in the F.I.R, dated 12.01.2025, is that the accused Akhidul Islam, develop a relationship with her and on 28.09.2020, alluring to marry her, taken her to his residence and committed sexual intercourse with her against her will. Later on, he refused to marry her and thereafter on 05.08.2024, the accused driven her out of his house and threatened to kill her. 5. Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the accused submits that the victim is the wife of the accused and they live together as husband and wife and due to some differences, the victim left the house of the accused and thereafter, lodged the F.I.R and that their marriage was registered and the marriage certificate is enclosed as Annexure No-1, with the affidavit filed by the victim and in the meantime, the dispute between her and the accused has been settled amicably and the F.I.R was filed due to misunderstanding and for undue influence of Page No.# 3/4 some other person and therefore, Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the accused contended to allow this petition. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has produce the case diary before this Court and submits that the I.O. has collected some materials against the accused and that the occurrence took place before solemnization of the marriage between the victim and the accused and that investigation is going on and therefore, Mr. Sharma, learned Additional P.P. has opposed the petition. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Patgiri, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, also submits that the respondent No.2, has filed an affidavit stating that the matter has been resolved between the parties amicably and out of misunderstanding the F.I.R was filed, and as, such Mr. Patgiri contended to release the accused on bail. 8. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the case diary with the assistance of Mr. Sarma, learned Additional P.P. and also perused the affidavit filed by the respondent No.2. 9. It appears from the case diary that the I.O. has collected some materials in support of the allegation made in the F.I.R. But, it also appears that there was relationship between the accused and the victim and the victim was living with the accused in his house prior to lodging of the F.I.R. From the affidavit filed by the respondent No.2, it appears that the victim and the accused are husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 10.09.2024 and Annexure-1, the marriage certificate enclosed with the affidavit also supports the contents of the affidavit. It also appears that out of misunderstanding and Page No.# 4/4 undue influence of some persons the case was filed by the victim and the same has amicably been settled in the meantime. 10. Further from the case diary, it appears that material part of the investigation is almost over and in that view of the matter further custodial detention of the accused seems to be unwarranted. 11. In the given facts and circumstances, specially, in view of the affidavit filed by the respondent No.2, this Court is inclined to allow this petition. 12. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, POCSO, Bongaigaon, the accused be enlarged on bail. 13. In terms of above, this bail petition stands disposed of. 14. The case diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant