Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010041822025 2025:GAU-AS:6295 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./539/2025 SAIFUL ISLAM S/O-SANOWAR HUSSAIN VILLAGE TETLIRTAL, P,S- BARPETA, DISTRICT BARPETA, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP ASSAM 2:PINHAJ FARHIN W/O- NAZMUL HAQUE VILLAGE- MUSLIMPATTY P.S-BARPETA DISTRICT-BARPETA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : J U AHMED, MR. J AHMED,H G DAISY,MS A HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. SURAJIT DAS, (AMICUS CURIAE R2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 20.05.2025 Heard learned counsel Mr. J. Ahmed for the petitioner Saiful Islam. 2. The petitioner has filed this application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 Page No.# 2/3 with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 26.10.2024 in connection with Special POCSO Case No.168/2024 pending in the court of Addl. Sessions Cum Special Judge (POCSO), Barpeta arising out of Barpeta P.S. Case No.407/2024, under Section 329(4)/64(1)/678 of BNSS, 2023 read with Section 4 of POCSO Act. 3. Heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam and Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is only 24 years old and he had a love affair with the victim. Now, a false case has brought up against the petitioner that he has committed sexual assault on the victim. The certified copy of deposition of the victim and her mother has been submitted, which clearly reveals that there is no clear date when the victim was assaulted by the petitioner. 5. It is further submitted that the FIR was lodged after 2 (two) months. The key witnesses have already been examined and if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, trial may not be adversely affected. 6. On the contrary, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the length of detention cannot be considered to be a ground for granting bail in heinous offences of this nature. The victim has clearly implicated the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has also submitted that the deposition of the victim and her mother as well as the cross-examination of the defence also implicates the petitioner. 8. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection. I have also scrutinized the trial Court record. The key witnesses have already been examined. I have also considered the submission that the petitioner is Page No.# 3/3 willing to co-operate with the trial and to abide by any stringent bail conditions if imposed upon him. I have also considered the age and antecedent of the petitioner. 9. Considering all aspects, the petitioner is enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- with suitable sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court under the conditions that:- (i) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission till completion of trial, and (ii) The petitioner shall not exercise threats to the witnesses or try to influence them. 10. On breach of any of the bail conditions, the Court is at liberty to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner. 11. The certified copy of the deposition of the witnesses is marked as ‘X’. 12. In terms of the above observation, the Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant