Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010140282026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1889/2026 SHAHJAHAN CHOUDHURY S/0 LATE NAUSHAD ALI, R/O PRAGATI NAGAR, BYE LANE NO. 5, P.O. P.S. SATGAON, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP (METROPOLITAN) ASSAM, PIN-781027 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:SANGEETA SINGH W/O LATE MANOJ SINGH R/O PRAGATI NAGAR BYE LANE NO. 5 P.O. P.S. SATGAON GUWAHATI KAMRUP (METROPOLITAN) ASSAM PIN-781027 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P D NAIR, MR. M R SODIAL,DR. S R A NASER,MR. RAJIB ALI,MR S AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, S KALITA(R2),MR A DEY(R2),MR. J K ROY(R2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 31-07-2026 Heard Mr. P.D. Nair, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. S.R.A. Naser, learned Page No.# 2/4 counsel for the accused. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Addl. P.P. for the state respondent and Mr. J.K. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. This application, under Section 483 of the BNSS 2023, is preferred by accused Shahjahan Choudhury, who has been languishing in jail hazoot since 11.06.2026, in connection with Sessions Special Case No. 117/2025, arising out of Satgaon P.S. Case No: 72 of 2025, registered under Sections 296/351(2)/177(2)/76 of BNSS, 2023 read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act, pending before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Kamrup(M). 3. It is to be noted here that above noted case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by one Samantha Singh, (actual name withheld) on 26.04.2025. 4. The essence of allegation in the FIR, dated 26.04.2025, against the accused is that on 25/04/2025, at 10.45 p.m. accused Shahjahan Choudhury abused the informant and also threatened her using slang language and pulled her T. Shirt. Later on, the said accused physically assaulted her and whiles her daughter, namely, Rasmika Sing (actual name withheld) interfered with the same then the accused, with intent to disrobe, tried to drag her daughter inside his gate and also tried to touch her chest and to torn her clothes. 5. Mr. Nair, learned counsel for the accused submits that after the case was registered, the investigating officer had issued a notice to the accused person under Section 35(3) of the B.N.S.S. and on receipt of the notice; the accused appeared before the investigating officer who had recorded his statement and that during the investigation the accused was never arrested. Mr. Nair also submits that on the completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer had submitted the Charge-Sheet vide C.S. No. 64/2025 dated 27/05/2025 under Sections 296/351(2)/117(2)/76 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 against the accused upon which Sessions Special Case No. 117/2025, has been registered and now it is pending before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Kamrup (Metropolitan) at Guwahati. Mr. Nair also submits that on receipt of the summons, the accused appeared before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Kamrup (M),on 11/06/2026 and on the same day the applicant filed a bail application vide petition no. 1040/2026 with a prayer for grant of bail but the learned Court below citing the Notification No. 17 dated 15/03/2024 of this Court, which requires in bail application in connection with every POCSO Page No.# 3/4 cases to issue notice under Annexure A to the informant and therefore he was taken into judicial custody and since then he has been languishing in jail hazoot. Thereafter, the bail petition was rejected. 5.1. Mr. Nair also submits that though the case has been registered under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, yet, the ingredients of the said offence is not made out. In support of his submission, Mr. Nair has referred to a decision of Meghalaya High Court in Mohammad Saimullah vs. State of Meghalaya & 2 Ors., Crl.Rev.P. No. 1 of 2022, dated: 26.05.2022. 5.2. Mr. Nair also submits that since charge sheet has been submitted, there is no question of hampering investigation or tampering with the witnesses and now trial will start and the accused has to prepare his defence. Mr. Nair also submits that the accused will appear before the court regularly and under such circumstances he has contended to allow this petition. 6. Per contra, Mr. Lahkar, learned Addl. P.P. has opposed this petition. He submits that material witnesses are yet to be examined and if at this stage bail is granted then he may try to influence the witnesses. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, Mr. Lahkar has contended to dismiss this petition. 7. Mr. J.K. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 also subscribes the submission of Mr. Lahkar and opposed the petition at this stage. 8. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also gone through the relevant provisions of law and also gone through the decisions referred by learned counsel for the accused. 9. It appears that the accused has been languishing in jail hazot since 11.06.2026. Further it appears that after completion of the investigation, the I.O. had submitted the Charge-Sheet, being C.S. No. 64/2025, dated 27/05/2025, under Sections 296/351(2)/117(2)/76 of BNS, 2023 read with Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012. He was never arrested during the period of investigation and he was taken into custody while he appeared before the learned court below on receipt of summon and applied for bail. This act of the accused demonstrated that he is ready to face trial. Page No.# 4/4 10. Further, given the nature of allegations in the FIR and also the requirements of Section 7 of POCSO Act, to constitute the offence punishable under Section 8 of the said Act, the submission of Mr. Nair in this regard also assumes significance and the decision of Meghalaya High Court, so referred to by him also strengthened his submissions. 11. Thus, considering above facts and circumstances, especially the period of detention and also in view of the nature and gravity of the offence and the punishment prescribed for the same, this Court is of the considered opinion that his further custodial detention is not warranted. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to allow this petition. 12. It is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/ (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with one surety of like amount, to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court, the accused shall be enlarged on bail. The learned Trial Court will be at liberty to impose any condition to ensure attendance of the accused during trial. 13. In terms of above, the bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant