Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010036762025 2025:GAU-AS:5330 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./489/2025 MONJIL HOQUE @ MANJIL HAQ S/O HOBI ALI VILL- SECONEE BORHULA P.S. JAKHALABANDHA DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:MUSSTT. ANUWARA BEGUM W/O MD. ABDUL SALAM VILL-SECONEE BORHULA P.S. JAKHALABANDHA DIST. SONITPUR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. G BORAH, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. D SAIKIA (AMICUS CURAIE, R-2) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 01.05.2025 Heard Ms. G. Borah, learned counsel of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State respondent No.1 and Ms. D. Saikia, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No.2. 2. This application is filed under Section 483 of BNSS, praying for releasing the petitioner on regular bail, who is languishing in jail hazot since 05.06.2024 in connection with Special POSCO Case No.61/2017 [arising out of Jakhalabandha P. S. Case No.40/2016], registered under Sections 366(A)/34/376(2)(n) of IPS read with Section 6 of the POSCO Act. 3. Scanned copy of the Case Record has already been received and I have perused the same. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Borah, that the present petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He was arrested on 05.06.2024 in connection with this case and has been in custody for the last 11 months. The charge was framed on 01.07.2024, and since then, the case has been fixed for evidence. However, to date, only one witness, i.e., the informant, has been examined by the prosecution out of the ten cited witnesses. He further submits that on 2/3 occasions, summons were duly served upon the informant and the victim of the case; however, they sought adjournments and did not appear before the Court to adduce their Page No.# 3/4 evidence. As a result, the case remains at the stage of evidence. Despite the petitioner having been in custody for 11 months, only one witness has been examined by the prosecution, and the trial is likely to take a reasonable amount of time for completion. She also submits that the petitioner, being a permanent resident of the address as mentioned, undertakes to appear before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, in the event he is granted the privilege of regular bail. 5. In this regard, Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that the victim was a minor at the relevant time of the incident, and her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. contains sufficient incriminating material. Furthermore, the Medical Report also reveals injuries sustained by the minor victim. Accordingly, he raises objections and submits that this is not a fit case for granting bail to the accused/petitioner at this stage. 6. Ms. Saikia, learned Amicus Curiae for respondent No. 2, submits that the victim was admittedly a minor at the time of the incident. She further submits that the petitioner’s earlier bail application was rejected, as it was revealed that he was shown as an absconder in the charge sheet and was subsequently arrested on 05.06.2024 based on a non-bailable warrant of arrest. Given the conduct of the accused/petitioner, including the potential for hampering or tampering with evidence, his earlier bail application was rightly rejected. She submits that there remains a likelihood of the petitioner influencing the witnesses, and therefore, bail should not be granted solely on the ground of prolonged incarceration. 7. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, and upon perusal of the case record, it appears that there are incriminating materials in the statement of the victim recorded under Section Page No.# 4/4 164 of the Cr.P.C. However, it is also a fact that, out of ten cited witnesses, the prosecution has examined only one, and the victim is yet to be examined. The case record also reveals that, on certain occasions, the victim and the informant sought adjournments, necessitating the issuance of fresh summons to them. Nevertheless, considering the materials on record, particularly the statement of the victim, and the probability of the petitioner influencing the minor victim, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage without recording the statements of the vital witnesses, especially the victim. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected. 8. In terms of above, this Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant