Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010065482025 2025:GAU-AS:5344 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./925/2025 MEHEDI ALOM @ MEHDI ALOM @ MD MEHDI ALOM S/O. AJIJUL ISLAM, R/O. VILL.- DHANIA BHETI PATHAR, P/S. BATADRAVA, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:ABDUL KADIR S/O. MD. AHAMMAD ALI R/O. VILL.- DHANIA BHETI PATHER P/S. BATADRAVA DIST. NAGAON ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ, A W AMAN,MR. SURAJIT DAS,A S CHOUDHURY,SAMIM RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. D GOGOI (R-2) Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 01.05.2025 Heard Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent and Mr. D. Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. 2. This application is filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, seeking grant of bail to the accused/petitioner i.e. Mehedi Alom @ Mehdi Alom @ Md. Mehdi Alom who was arrested on 18.05.2024 in connection with Special POCSO Case No.96/2024 registered under Section 366/376 of IPC, 1860 read with Section 6, POCSO Act, 2012 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1 cum Special Judge, POCSO, Nagaon arising out of Batadrava P.S. Case No.36/2024. 3. The brief facts of the case is that respondent No.2/informant filed an FIR on 02.05.2024 alleging inter-alia that on the same date at around 9:00 a.m., the accused/petitioner along with two of his friends forcefully abducted his 16 years old minor daughter on her way to school. Accordingly, a case was registered under Section 366/376 of IPC, 1860. Later on, section 6 of the POCSO Act also added. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested on 18.05.2024 and after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the accused/petitioner under Section 366 of IPC read with section 6 of the POCSO Act. Thereafter, the learned Page No.# 3/6 Additional Sessions Judge No.1 cum Special Judge, POCSO, Nagaon framed charge under Section 366/376 of IPC, 1860 read with Section 6, POCSO Act, 2012 against the accused/petitioner and accordingly the trial commenced. As such, the present bail application has been filed. 5. Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the plea of juvenility was raised on the very first day of production, however, the same was rejected after the closure of evidence by the trial Court, despite it was imperative for the Court to try the plea of juvenility at the outset itself. He further submits that accordingly the said order of rejection was assailed before this Court in Crl. Rev.P/48/2025, wherein this Court by order dated 19.02.2025 was pleased to stay further proceeding of the subject POCSO case. 6. He further submits that the petitioner is languishing in jail since last 349 days, which is almost 1 (one) year. He further submits that the trial has been unduly delayed for no fault on the part of the accused. He accordingly submits that the fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has accordingly been infringed. He further submits that the accused/petitioner and the victim girl were in love relationship and the allegation made in the FIR is completely false. He accordingly submits that in view of the prolonged delay, the bail prayer made herein warrants to be granted. 7. Per contra, Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent submits that it appears from the scan copy of the case records that all the prosecution witnesses have Page No.# 4/6 already been examined and the 313 statement of the accused/petitioner has also been recorded and the matter was fixed for argument on 19.02.2025. However, because of the stay order passed in the Crl.Rev.P./48/2025, the trial has not proceeded thereafter. He further submits that the factum of love relationship appears to be admitted by the victim girl, however, the victim girl clearly implicated the accused/petitioner of having physical relationship with her right from the 161 statement made before the Investigation Officer to her deposition made before the trial Court. 8. Mr. D. Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/informant in his usual fairness submits before this Court that it is apparent that because the juvenile plea raised by the accused/petitioner on the very initial stage having not been decided in accordance with law, the trial has been unduly delayed. He further by placing reliance in a decision passed by the Apex Court in the case of X Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. in SLP (Criminal No.13378/2024), submits that the Apex Court has clearly held that when the trial gets unduly delayed and that too for no fault on the part of the accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on the ground that right of the accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed. 9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and have perused the material available on record including the scan copy of the case records. 10. A perusal of the material available on record indicates that the Page No.# 5/6 alleged age of the accused/petitioner is about 18 years at the time of occurrence. It further appears that the victim girl is of 16 years age at the time of occurrence. It is further apparent that both were in love relationship at the time of occurrence and the allegation in the FIR was that the victim girl was taken by the accused/petitioner, however, no allegation at that time as regards physical relationship appears to have been made. Be that as it may, subsequently, the victim girl has implicated the accused/petitioner of having physical contact with her. Pertinent that this Court cannot be unmindful of the fact that this Court is not the convicting Court and is only considering whether the accused/petitioner is entitled to be released on bail or not. The parameters for consideration of the bail prayer are well settled. 11. In the present case, the accused/petitioner has been languishing in jail for almost 1 (one) year and despite all the prosecution witnesses having been adduced and 313 statement has also been recorded, the trial is unlikely to end inasmuch as the plea of juvenility is sub judice before this Court in Crl. Rev. P./48/2025, wherein further proceeding of the trial has been stayed. It further appears that the accused/petitioner has no criminal background. It is further apparent that the accused/petitioner is a student of 12th standard. 12. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that further detention of the accused/petitioner is totally unjustified. 13. Accordingly, it is provided that the petitioner, named above, Page No.# 6/6 shall be released on bail in connection with the above noted case on furnishing bail bond of Rs.15,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1 cum Special Judge, Nagaon. 14. The bail granted to the petitioner shall be subject to the following conditions:- i) The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on all subsequent dates. ii)The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer; and iii) The petitioner shall refrain from such activities with which he is alleged, failing which, bail orders shall stand cancelled. Resultantly, the bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant