Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8349 (GAU)

SAYED ALI @ SAID LE v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

AB/531/2025 · 2025-06-19

Parthivjyoti Saikia

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010042232025 2025:GAU-AS:8248 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/531/2025 SAYED ALI @ SAID LE S/O MD. ROSHID ALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHORAKATA PAM, PS SUALKUCHI RPS, DIST KAMRUP ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM 2:MD JOHURUDDIN W/O LATE OSMAN ALI RESIDENT F VILLAGE BHORAKATA PAM SUALKUCHI PS SUALKUCHI RPS DIST KAMRUP ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B CHOWDHURY, MR A AKBAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS B CHOUDHURY, Amicus Curiae (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 20.06.2025 Heard Mr. B. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, Page No.# 2/2 learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam and Ms. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. This application is filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in respect of Sualkuchi River Police Station Case No.2/2025 under Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 read with Section 64(2) of BNS, 2023. The petitioner allegedly proposed a 16 year old girl. On the day of occurrence, she was forcefully taken into the jungle, where the petitioner had committed forceful sexual intercourse with her. It may be mentioned that the entire incident was video graphed by another person. The petitioner claimed to be juvenile on the day of occurrence and therefore, this Court directed to conduct ossification test upon the petitioner. The test report indicates that the petitioner was above 18 years but below 20 years of age at time of incident. It may be stated that the victim girl refused to undergo medical examination. It may also be stated that pursuant to the interim order granted in favour of the petitioner, Md. Sayed Ali @ Said Le, he has already appeared before the I/O. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the opinion that under the given circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve to be detained in custody. Accordingly, the pre-arrest bail application is allowed. The interim bail granted to the petitioner on 26.05.2025 is hereby made absolute. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant