Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010140082026 2026:GAU-AS:12568 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1887/2026 ABDULLAH SK ALIAS DHANANJOY DEBNATH S/O DIBAKAR DEBNATH, R/O RAJAPARA PT II, PS BOGRIBARI, DIST KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:SAHJAMAL SK S/O LT INTAJ ALI R/O RAJAPARA PT II PS BOGRIBARI DIST KOKRAJHAR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ, MD A RAHMAN,R MALI,A MISHRA,MR. SURAJIT DAS,MR A W AMAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. MD IMDAD(R2),MD R ISLAM(R2),MR. J JAKARIA(R2),MS F HUSSAIN(R2),MR S M ABDULLAH P(R2) B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 31.08.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard learned Additional Page No.# 2/4 Public Prosecutor for the State, and the learned counsel for respondent No. 2. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking regular bail for the accused/petitioners, Abdullah SK @ Dhananjay Debnath, in detention since 18.11.2025 in connection with Bogribari P.S. Case No. 72/2025 under Section 137(2) BNS, 2023 dated 14.11.2025, charge sheet No. 76/2025 submitted on 29.11.2025 under Sections 137(2)/64(1) BNS r/w Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012, Special Case No. 93/2025 under Sections 137(2)/64(2) BNS r/w Section of POCSO, before the Learned Special Judge cum Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Kokrajhar. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he enticed the victim, who was aged 17 years at the time of occurrence and took her to some unknown place and committed rape upon her. Subsequently, the victim was recovered and on the basis of the FIR lodged by her father, the police commenced investigation and ultimately submitted the charge sheet. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial of the case has progressed and the petitioner has been languishing in jail since November 2025, and having regard to the above, he may be released on bail. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel representing respondent No. 2 submit that the petitioner is 47 years old and is a married Page No.# 3/4 person with three children from the present marriage, and the victim is the cousin of his wife, and further, the victim has implicated the petitioner in her deposition before the Court, which is consistent with her previous statements before the Magistrate as well as the police. 6. The scanned copy of the TCR has called for has been received from where it appears that four numbers of witnesses, including the informant and the victim, have been examined so far. The age of the petitioner is recorded as 33 years by the Interim order passed by this Court earlier, shall continue till the next date of listing and not 47 years as stated by the prosecution. 7. The learned trial Court had rejected an earlier bail application on behalf of the petitioner by order dated 06.05.2026, on the ground that it would be justifiable to examine the material witnesses before considering the bail prayer of the accused since the release of the accused at that stage may cause prejudice to the case of the prosecution. Subsequently, however, the material witnesses have already been examined. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also harped on the fact that the victim had refused to undergo medical examination, for which some explanation has been offered by the victim in her deposition before the Court in the course of trial. 8. The victim and the informant and some other material witnesses have Page No.# 4/4 been examined and there remains no scope for influencing the witnesses who have already been examined, although the victim and other witnesses have squarely implicated the petitioner in the commission of penetrative sexual assault, though their depositions not free from statements made for the first time before the Court. Be that as it may, since the material witnesses have already been examined and having regard to the period of detention of more than nine months, I am of the view that the petitioner may be released on bail at this stage. 9. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is allowed. 10. The petitioner was allowed to go on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Learned Special Judge cum Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC). 11. The petitioner shall continue to cooperate with the trial and shall not try to influence or intimidate the remaining witnesses. Furthermore, the petitioner is directed to abstain from making any contact with the victim and her immediate family members. 12. The bail petition stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant