Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010037972025 2025:GAU-AS:3047 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./488/2025 MD. KURMAN ALI S/O- EYAJUL HAQUE, VILL- GOHALI BHANGA, NIZ BAGHMARI, P.O. BURHIGANG, P.S. GINGIA, DIST- BISWANATH, PIN- 784176, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE P.P., ASSAM 2:MD. AJGAR ALI S/O- LATE JUSUMUDDIN VILL.- GOHALI BHANGA NIZ- BAGHMARI P.O. BURHIGANG P.S. GINGIA DIST. BISWANATH PIN- 784176 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R DE, MR P NEOG,MS. K SHARMA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ (AMICUS CURIAE, R2) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 20.03.2025 Heard Mr. R. De, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. N. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No.1 and Mr. S. Nawaz, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No.2. 2. This application, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is preferred by the petitioner, who has been languishing in jail hazot in connection with Spl. (POCSO) Case No. 02/2020, registered under Section 365 of the IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The case is pending before the learned Special Judge, Biswanath at Biswanath Chariali. 3. Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was granted bail on 21.01.2020 by the learned Special Judge, Biswanath, in connection with Spl. (POCSO) Case No. 02/2020. Thereafter, he regularly appeared before the said Court. He further submits that, except the Investigating Officer (IO), all other witnesses have already been examined. However, on 26.04.2023, the petitioner could not appear before the learned Trial Court, and his engaged counsel also failed to take any steps on his behalf. 4. He further submits that the petitioner, being engaged in contractual work in Arunachal Pradesh, had to leave for the State. Due to miscommunication with his engaged counsel, no steps were taken on his behalf. Subsequently, he was arrested on the strength of a Non-Bailable Warrant of Arrest (NBWA) on 21.10.2024, and since 22.10.2024, he is in custody for more than 150 days. He also submits that the trial is at its final stage, with only the examination of the Page No.# 3/4 I.O pending, as all other witnesses have already been examined. The petitioner is willing and ready to appear before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, if granted the privilege of bail. 5. In this context, Mr. Nawaz, learned Amicus Curiae for respondent No. 2, submits that while it is true that all witnesses except the I.O have been examined, but there is no satisfactory explanation for the petitioner’s absence of more than one year, which has caused a delay in the proceedings. Accordingly, at this stage, he raises an objection to granting bail to the petitioner. 6. Similarly, Ms. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that the petitioner remained absent for over a year, which delayed the disposal of the case. She contends that no proper explanation has been provided for his prolonged absence and, therefore, raises an objection to granting bail at this stage. 7. Considering the submissions of the learned counsels and the overall circumstances of the case, it is observed that the accused/petitioner had been regularly appearing before the learned Trial Court and had faced the trial. From the submissions of both sides, it is evident that, except for the I.O, all other witnesses, including key witnesses, have already been examined by the prosecution. However, it cannot be overlooked that the petitioner’s absence for more than one year contributed to the delay in the disposal of the case, prompting the learned Trial Court to issue an NBWA against him, which led to his arrest on 22.10.2024. Nonetheless, considering the period of detention already undergone by the petitioner (i.e., more than 150 days) and other relevant aspects of the case, I find it to be a fit case to enlarge the accused/petitioner on bail. Page No.# 4/4 8. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Biswanath, Biswanath Chariali, the accused/petitioner, namely, Md. Kurman Ali, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall appear before the learned Special Judge, Biswanath as and when the date is fixed; (ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge, Biswanath, without prior permission. 9. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant