Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010090402026 2026:GAU-AS:11770 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1255/2026 JAHIDUR RAHMAN ALIAS JAHIDUL ISLAM S/O ABDUL RAHMAN R/O VILL- GORSINGA BIHIAGAON P.S. TEZPUR DIST. SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN-784025. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:MD. ISMAIL HUSSAIN AKAND S/O LATE RIAJ UDDIN AKAND R/O VILL- KAROLANI NEPALI LP SCHOOL P.S. TEZPUR DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-78402 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. M R DEVI, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. SURAJIT DAS, Amicus Curiae, R2 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 18.08.2026 [1] Heard Ms. M.R. Devi, the learned counsel Page No.# 2/6 for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam as well as Mr. S. Das, the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent No. 2. [2] This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Jahidur Rahman @ Jahidul Islam, who has been detained behind the bars since 25.02.2025(for the last 542 days) in connection with Special POCSO Case No. 38/2025. [3] The gist of accusation in this case is that on 23.02.2025, the father of the victim girl had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Borghat Police Station, inter alia, alleging that his minor daughter aged about 8 years (victim girl) has been raped by the petitioner on 20.02.2025 due to which the victim girl became unwell and she suffered injuries in her private parts. After filing of the FIR, Tezpur P.S. Case No. 131/2025 was registered under Section 65(2) of the BNS read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and investigation was initiated. [4] On completion of the investigation, charge- sheet has been filed before the court of learned Special Judge, Sonitpur and trial is proceeding. [5] The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has approached this court Page No.# 3/6 for the third time seeking bail in connection with the Special POCSO Case No. 38/2025. She submits that his earlier bail applications were rejected by this court, however, since the last rejection order, there has been a new development, i.e., in the meanwhile, the prosecution witness No. 5 has been examined by the trial court. She submits that in his deposition during cross-examination by defence side, the PW-5 has deposed before the trial court that on 20.02.2025, the accused, namely, Jahidur Rahman @ Jahidul Islam did not visit Tengakhuti LP School. She submits that the incident had occurred on 20.02.2025 and the evidence of PW-5 clearly indicates that the present petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. [6] She further submits that considering the long detention of the petitioner as well as considering the fact that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the trial, his continued detention may not be necessary for fair completion of the trial in Special POCSO Case No. 38/2025. She, therefore, prays for allowing the petitioner to go on bail of any condition. [7] On the other hand, Mr. B. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the present petitioner mainly on the ground of the nature of offence involved in this case as well as the implicating evidence on record Page No.# 4/6 against the present petitioner. [8] He submits that the trial has fairly progressed and already 8 out of 10 prosecution witnesses have been examined. He further submits that considering the nature of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses on record, there is every likelihood of the petitioner being convicted in the pending case against him. He, therefore, submits that if at this stage the petitioner is released on bail, he may evade the course of justice, which may hamper the smooth progress of the trial against him, which has still now progressed fairly. [9] He further submits that mere statement by PW-5 that the petitioner was not there in the school on the day when the alleged offence occurred is not believable in as much as during his examination-in-chief, he has stated that he came to know about the incident after 2-3 days of the incident. [10] He further submits that the other prosecution witnesses, including the victim girl has categorially implicated the petitioner in the offence alleged against him and, therefore, at this stage bail may not be granted. [11] Mr. S. Das, learned Amicus Curiae has also opposed the granting of bail to the present petitioner on the ground that since the day of last rejection of bail Page No.# 5/6 application filed by the present petitioner, no fresh ground has been shown by the petitioner. [12] He submits that considering the implicating materials against the petitioner, the prayer for bail may be rejected. [13] I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone though the materials on record, including the scanned copy of the trial court records. It appears that on 06.01.2026, this court after considering the pleas of the present petitioner as well as the materials on record rejected the prayer for bail by its order dated 06.01.2026 in Bail Application No. 3797/2025. This court is not convinced with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that mere stating by one of the eight witnesses, who have been examined by the prosecution till date, that the petitioner was not present in the place of occurrence on the day of alleged offence may be regarded as a new ground for re-considering the prayer for bail made by the present petitioner. It appears that by its order dated 06.01.2026, this court has considered the deposition of the victim girl as well as other witnesses which clearly implicates the present petitioner in the offence alleged in the aforesaid case. The trial of the Special POCSO Case No. 38/2025 has fairly progressed and the next date for examination of Page No.# 6/6 witnesses is fixed on 25.08.2026. [14] Under such circumstances, after having rejected the bail application for the petitioner on earlier two occasions, this court is not convinced that any new ground has arisen to grant bail to the petitioner in a case involving heinous offence under the provisions of POCSO Act. [15] As such, the prayer for bail is rejected. [16] This bail application is, accordingly, dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant