Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010141512026 2026:GAU-AS:11059 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1896/2026 AMINUL ISLAM SON OF LATE ATAUR RAHMAN, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.1, ISLAMPUR, P.S. PALTANBAZAR, GUWAHATI, DISTRICT - KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAGURMARI, P.S. FAKIRAGRAM, DISTRICT - KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:BISWAJIT KALITA S/O LATE NABIN CHANDRA KALITA RESIDENT OF NEW DUDHNOI P.S. DUDHNOI DISTRICT - GOALPARA ASSAM PIN -78312 Advocate for the Petitioner : ABHIJIT PATOR, MR. D BORA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS P DAS, Legal Aid Counsel, R2 Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 07.08.2026 Heard Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the accused and Mr. P. S. Laskar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1. Also heard Ms. P. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. This application, under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, is preferred by the accused, namely, Aminul Islam, who has been languishing in jail hajot in connection with Paltanbazar Police Station Case No. 166/2026, under Sections 123/127(4)/143(5)/144(1)/ 351(3)/65(1)/96 of the BNS, 2023, read with Sections 75/77/79/81 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, read with Sections 3/4/5/6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, since 25.06.2026. 3. It is to be noted here that the above noted case has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by one Biswajit Kalita, on 20.06.2026. 4. The essence of allegation in the FIR dated 20.06.2026, is that on 28.05.2026, the informant, who is a member of the Goalpara District Child Welfare Committee, has recovered one minor victim girl, namely, Neha Sharma, aged 15 years, from Kharmuja, Goalpara, and during interrogation, the victim stated that while searching for a job at Fancy Bazar, she met one Biki Ali, who brought her to Ulubari, by inducing her to provide her a job at a Beauty Parlor. Then one day, said Biki Ali gave her injection and also mixed some intoxicating substance with her food. Thereafter, he used to send male person to her room Page No.# 3/4 every day and forced her to have sexual intercourse with them. The said girl was confined in the said house at Ulubari, by said Biki Ali for 15 days. The allegation against the present accused is that being the owner of ‘Arhaam Home Stay’, he allowed people to use the same as a brothel. 5. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused has been languishing in jail hajot for the last 42 days and that if any offence is made out against the accused, it is under Sections 3, 4, 5 & 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, which are 60 days offence, and that the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, is not made out against the accused and that he is languishing in jail hajot since 25.06.2026, and that he is ready to co-operate with the investigating agency and therefore, he has contended to allow the petition. 6. Per contra, Mr. P. S. Laskar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1 has vehemently opposed the petition. He submits that though, the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, under which, the present case has been registered, may not be applicable against the accused, yet, the offence under Section 10 of the Act, i.e., abatement, is made out against him and that the I.O. has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the accused and investigation is also going on and under such circumstances, he has contended to dismiss the petition. 7. Ms. Das, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No. 2 has also subscribed the submission of Mr. Laskar, learned APP for the State respondent No. 1. Page No.# 4/4 8. Having heard the submission of the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also gone through the case diary with the assistance of Mr. Lahkar, learned APP for the respondent No. 1. 9. Case diary indicates that the I.O. has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the accused. And investigation is still going on, and in the event of enlarging the accused on bail at this stage, it will hamper with the investigation. Further, the allegations are also serious in nature. 10. Thus, considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the punishment prescribed for the same and also considering the stage of investigation, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case, where the privilege of bail can be granted to the accused. 11. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. 12. Case diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant