Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010057122025 2025:GAU-AS:5849 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./846/2025 AMINUR HUSSAIN S/O- ABDUL HOQUE, R/O- NO-1 JOYNA, P.S- GOSSAIGAON, DIST-KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:JAMIR ALI S/O- LATE GOHUR SK VILL- BHODAGURI P.S- GOSSAIGAON DIST- KOKRAJHAR PIN-78336 Advocate for the Petitioner : MD. I HUSSAIN, MS. M MEDHI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. F A HASSAN (R-2) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 13.05.2025 Heard Mr. I. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1 and Mr. F. A. Hassan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with Gossaigaon P.S. Case No. 12/2025, under Sections 137(2)/142 of BNS, 2023 added Section 8 of POCSO Act. Scanned copy of the Trial Court Record has already been received and I have perused the same. It is submitted by Mr. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the present accused/petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. More so, from the contents of the F.I.R. itself, it is seen that it is not a case of kidnapping, rather the girl herself went with the petitioner/accused No. 1. He further submitted that both the family members of the informant and the accused are the relatives and there was some dispute in regards to monetary transaction between the parties and for which, the victim was also not allowed to visit to the house of the accused/petitioner. But, without hearing her parents, the victim girl used to visit the house of the Page No.# 3/4 accused/petitioner and hence, out of anger only, the present F.I.R. has been lodged against the present petitioner. Mr. Hussain further submitted that the accused/ petitioner is in custody for last more than 100 days and the case has already been charge-sheeted and hence, there cannot be any probability of hampering or tampering with the evidences of the witnesses. The accused, being the permanent resident of his addressed locality, will regularly appear before the learned Trial Court on each and every date to be fixed by the Court. In this regard, Mr. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, raised objection and submitted that it is not a fit case to allow the accused/petitioner to go on bail at this stage and the probability of hampering with the evidencees of witnesses, more particularly, the minor girl, cannot be denied at this stage. Further he submitted that the victim was admittedly a minor at the relevant time of incident and she implicated the present petitioner in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and for which, Section 8 of POCSO Act is added subsequently. Mr. Hassan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/ informant, submitted in this regard that it is a fact that there was a dispute between the family members of both the informant and the accused due to some monetary transactions. However, both the families are relatives and out of misunderstanding only, the informant lodged the F.I.R. To that effect, he also filed an affidavit before this Court. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, I have also perused the scanned copy of the Trial Court Record and the statement made by the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C./183 BNSS. From the Page No.# 4/4 materials available in the case record, more particularly, the statement made by the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it is seen that she has implicated the accused/petitioner wherein she brought the allegation that the accused/petitioner had improperly touched her in various parts of her body. In the same time, it is also a fact that the victim was a minor at the relevant time of incident. In view of above, it is the opinion of this Court that even if there is any compromise between the parties, it is not appropriate to allow the accused/petitioner to go on bail till recording of the statement of victim and hence, I do not find it a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the accused/petitioner at this stage and therefore the same stands rejected. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant