Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010063302025 2025:GAU-AS:5141 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./923/2025 RAHUL TUMUNG S/O LT.JAYANTA TUMUNG VILL-PATORKUCHI P.S. SONAPUR DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:BHARAT DEKA S/O LT. DEBORAM DEKA VILL-KAMALAJHARI P.S. SONAPUR DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A DUTTA, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ(AMICUS CURIAE, R2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 28-04-2025 Heard Mr. A. Dutta, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Page No.# 2/4 D.P. Goswami, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State respondent and Mr. S. Nawaz, the learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with prayer for bail as the petitioner is behind bars since 02.09.2024 in connection with Sessions Spl. Case No. 274/2024, (Arising out of Sonapur PS Case No. 73/2024) under Sections 341/376 of IPC, R/W Section 6 of POCSO Act is pending before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Kamrup (M) at Guwahati. 3. Scanned copy of the case record along with the Case Diary has already been received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Dutta that the FIR was lodged with some false and concocted story wherein there is no allegation of penetrative sexual assault was brought against the present petitioner and the case was initially registered u/s 323/354/341/294/506 read with Section 8 of POCSO Act and subsequently the charge-sheet was filed into the same Section 376 IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act and charge was framed u/s 341/376 IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 5. Mr. Dutta further submitted that there are only 3 witnesses cited by prosecution and out of which the victim and the informant, the vital witnesses are already been examined by the prosecution. He further submitted that while recording the statement of the victim as well as the informant they introduced some new facts which were not even mentioned at the time of lodging of the FIR. Mr. Dutta further submitted that from the charge-sheet itself it is seen that the victim refused to go for medical examination though he brought the Page No.# 3/4 allegation of penetrative sexual assault on her. The petitioner is behind the bars since last 239 days and hence considering his length of detention also he may be released on bail. The petitioner being a local person, there is no probability of absconding or question of hampering or tampering the witnesses also does not arise at this stage. However, he will appear before the Investigating Officer on each and every date as fixed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Kamrup (M) at Guwahati. 6. Mr. Goswami, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that the victim was admittedly a minor at the relevant time of incident and he further submitted that out of 3 witnesses, 2 have already been examined and thus the case is on verge of completion of trial and accordingly Mr. Goswami raised objection and submitted that the bail petition may not be considered at this stage. 7. Mr. Nawaz, the learned Amicus Curiae appointed for the respondent no. 2 also submitted that two witnesses have already been examined by the prosecution and hence the case is at the verge of completion of trial and he further submitted that there are sufficient incriminating materials brought against the present petitioner by the victim as well as the informant of this case. He further submitted that admittedly the victim was a minor at the time of incident and hence even if there was any love relationship, her consent cannot be considered as valid consent and accordingly Mr. Nawaz also raised objection in granting bail to the present petitioner. 8. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, the statement made in the FIR, charge-sheet as well as the statement made by the victim and the informant and the other materials available in the case record, I find that further custodial detention of the present accused/petitioner may not Page No.# 4/4 be necessary. Further, the question of hampering or tampering the witnesses also does not arise at this stage and hence considering all these aspects of the case, I find it a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the present accused/petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the accused/petitioner is 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 (POCSO), Kamrup (M) at Guwahati. The accused/petitioner, namely Rahul Tumung, 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 (POCSO), Kamrup (M) at Guwahati without prior permission. The Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant