Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010050272025 2025:GAU-AS:4926 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./726/2025 SHORIF UDDIN @ SHORIFUL ISLAM S/O ABDUL KARIM @ KORIM UDDIN, R/O VILLAGE- MOHMARI PATHER, P.O. TENGAGURI, P.S. LAHARIGHAT, DISTRICT MORIGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:HUSEN ALI S/O LATE AMSAR ALI VILL-AUTHOLABORI WARD NO. 6 P.S. LAHARIGHAT DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM PIN-782105 PH.NO. 700279620 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M ALI, H R KHAN,MR J. E. SARKAR,MR. M R Z CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. N MAHAJAN, (AMICUS CURIAE, R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 24-04-2025 Page No.# 2/4 Heard Mr. M. Ali, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State respondent and Mr. D. Bora, the learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of Mr. N. Mahajan, the learned Amicus Curiae for respondent no. 2. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying for granting regular bail to the accused/petitioner in connection with Laharighat Police Station Case No. 173/2024, under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 6 of the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 3. Scanned copy of the case record has already been received. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Ali, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused/petitioner is innocent and has not committed any such offence as alleged in the FIR. It is a fact that both the petitioner and the victim had love affairs and out of love affairs they went together and made some sexual relationship but that physical relationship was consensual and no force applied on the part of the present petitioner. Further he submitted that from the statement made by the victim u/s 164 Cr.PC it is clear that the victim went with the petitioner by her own and stayed in a hotel room and thereafter she again stayed with him for 6 days in his own house. He further submitted that the accused/petitioner is in custody since last more than 7 months and out of 7 nos. of witnesses only one witness i.e. the victim has been examined by the prosecution and thus there is considerable delay in disposal and completion of the trial which otherwise violates the Article 21 of the Constitution. Mr. Ali, further submitted that the accused/petitioner is a permanent resident of his Page No.# 3/4 addressed locality and there is no chance of absconding and also there is no chance of any hampering or tampering with the evidences of the other witnesses. As the victim/the vital witness of the prosecution has already been examined, the question of tampering with the evidence of the prosecution also does not arise. However, the petitioner is ready and willing to contest the case and appear before the learned Court below on each and every date to be fixed by the Court. 5. Mr. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor raised objection and submitted that the victim had implicated the present petitioner and it is an admitted fact that the victim was minor at the relevant time of incident and hence her consent also cannot be considered as a legal and valid consent. He further submitted that from her evidence it is seen that he forcibly took her into the hotel room and also had physical relationship with her on threat. If he is allowed to go on bail there is probability of hampering and tampering with the evidence of other witnesses also cannot be denied at this stage. 6. Mr. Bora, the learned Amicus Curiae appeared for respondent no. 2 also submitted that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident and at the same time he submitted that the probability of hampering or tampering the other witnesses also cannot be denied at this stage. Mr. Bora accordingly raised objection in allowing bail at this stage. 7. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the case record, the statement of the victim recorded u/s 164 Cr.PC as well as the evidence of the victim recorded as PW-1. It is also a fact that the petitioner is behind the bars for a considerable period and only one witness/victim could be examined by the prosecution till date and hence the probability of completion of trial within near future also cannot be expected at Page No.# 4/4 this stage. 8. Considering all these aspects of the case and also considering the statement made by the victim u/s 164 Cr.PC vis-à-vis in her evidence, I find that further custodial detention of the present petitioner may not be required and accordingly I find it is a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the present petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the accused/petitioner be released on bail 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, Morigaon. The accused/petitioner, namely Shorif Uddin @ Shoriful Islam, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threaten 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, Morigaon without prior permission. The Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant