Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010133632026 2026:GAU-AS:11541 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1815/2026 MD SIRAJUL HOQUE SON OF LATE SULMAN ALI, RESIDENT AT OF VILL-2 NO AHMEDPUR, P.S. - BIHPURIA, DISTRICT - LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, STATE OF ASSAM. 2:MUSST RAHIMA BEGUM WIFE OF SAIDUR RAHMAN RESIDENT OF VILL-DAULATPUR P.S-BIHPURIA DISTRICT- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : B DUTTA, MS. P DAS,A B T HAQUE Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR SAIFUL ISLAM(R2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 14.08.2026 Heard Mr. A.B.T. Haque, learned counsel for the accused. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1, Page No.# 2/3 and Mr. S. Islam, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/informant. 2. This petition, under Section 483, BNSS is preferred by accused, namely, Md. Sirajul Hoque, who has been languishing in jail hazot in connection with Bihpuria P.S. Case No. 75/2026, under Section 64 of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2, since 21.05.2026, for grant of bail. 3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by one Rina Begum (actual name withheld) on 20.05.2026. The essence of allegation against the present accused is that being the brother-in-law of the victim girl, aged about 17 years, and taking advantage of absence of the parents of the victim, he had committed sexual intercourse with her on multiple occasions, as a result of which the victim got pregnant and is carrying pregnancy of nine months. 4. Mr. Haque, the learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused was arrested on 21.05.2026, and since then, he has been languishing in jail hazot. He also submits that in the meantime, investigation of the case has been completed and the I.O. has laid charge-sheet against the present accused, and that the accused will take care of the victim as he happens to be her brother-in- law, and that he will face the trial, and therefore, he has contended to allow the petition. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition on the ground that at the relevant point of time, the victim was 17 years old, and the accused had committed the offence having administered wine to the victim. 6. However, Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/informant submits that as per his instruction, the accused will take care of the victim, and Page No.# 3/3 he has no objection in enlarging the accused on bail. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also perused scanned copy of the record received from the learned trial Court as well as the statements of the victim girl recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS, and also the statement of the other witnesses, examined by the I.O. 7. It appears that at the relevant point of time, the victim had not completed 18 years of age and she has been carrying pregnancy of nine months now, and in no uncertain term, the victim has implicated the accused with the offence alleged in the FIR. 8. Having considered the above, especially the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, and also considering the possibility of influencing the witnesses who are yet to be examined, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the privilege of bail can be extended to the accused. And accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant