Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010093952026 2026:GAU-AS:14103 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1278/2026 SOFIQUL AHMED ALIS SOFIKUL AHMED SON OF SOFIUDDIN AHMED R/O TILOK BONGALI GAON BHOJO P.O. BHOJO P.S. SONARI DIST. CHARAIDEO, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM. 2:SAYEDA MAZIDA BEGUM W/O SOFIKUL AHMED R/O GARAL KHELIYAPARA AZARA GUWAHATI WEST DIST.KAMRUP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. P BORAH, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. A DHAR, AMICUS CURIAE R2 Linked Case : I.A.(Crl.)/837/2026 SAYEDA MAZIDA BEGUM W/O SOFIQUL AHMED R/O KAHILIPARA Page No.# 2/6 JATIA KAMRUP (M) P.S.- DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 VERSUS KRISHNA GOGOI AND ASSOCIATES AND ANR ADVOCATE GAUHATI HIGH COURT CHAMBER OFFICE AT GAUHATI HIGH COURT GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781001 2:SOFIQUL AHMED @ SOFIKUL AHMED S/O SOFIUDDIN AHMED R/O TIOK BONGALI GAON BHOJO P.O. BHOJO P.S.- SONARI DIST- CHARAIDEO ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : PETITIONER IN PERSON Advocate for : appearing for KRISHNA GOGOI AND ASSOCIATES AND ANR BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 23.09.2026 Heard Ms. P. Borah, learned counsel for the accused and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. Also heard Ms. Sayeda Mazida Begum, respondent No. 2 in person. 2. This application, under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, is preferred by the accused, namely, Sofiqul Ahmed @ Sofikul Ahmed, who has been Page No.# 3/6 languishing in jail hajot since 30.08.2025, in connection with Sessions Special Case No. 196/2025, arising out of Azara Police Station Case No. 95/2025, under Sections 115(2)/296/351(2) of BNS, 2023, read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012, read with Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, POCSO, Kamrup (M), Assam (hereinafter, 'Trial Court'); for grant of bail. 3. It is to be noted here that the above-noted case has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by the respondent No. 2 herein, on 06.06.2025. 4. The essence of allegation against the accused in the FIR, dated 06.06.2025, is that the accused is the husband of the respondent No. 2. He got married with the respondent No.2, who has a child from her erstwhile boy friend. And the accused, not being the biological father of the child of the respondent No. 2, subjected the child to harassment, by constantly beating and biting on his person, and even on his private parts, like nipple, etc. As a result, the child sustained bite marks and scars all over his body. He also used to squeeze the throat of the respondent No. 2, in order to scare him, and that because of the aforesaid incidents, the son of the respondent No. 2 is suffering from trauma. He also used to threaten to eliminate the respondent No. 2 and her son, and that he has no fear of law and Police. 5. Ms. Borah, learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused was arrested on 30.08.2025, and since then, he has been languishing in jail hajot for the last 1 year and 23 days. She also submits that after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted in this matter and the learned Page No.# 4/6 Trial Court, after framing charge, has examined as many as 5 (five) witnesses so far, out of 12 (twelve) witnesses cited in the charge-sheet. And since the material witnesses have been examined herein this case, the question of hampering investigation and tampering witnesses does not arise. 5.1 Taking this Court through the evidence of the witnesses, she submits that the victim, who is a 4 (four) year old son of the respondent No. 2, has deposed his evidence in such a manner that cannot be expected from a child of his age and it goes to show that he was tutored by the respondent No. 2. 5.2 Ms. Borah further submits that the medical evidence also has not supported the allegations made by the informant in the FIR. However, she submits that the victim was examined after 8 (eight) days of the occurrence. 5.3 It is the further submission of Ms. Borah that the respondent No. 2 has also instituted one proceeding, under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, and there is contraction in the allegations made in the said complaint, under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, with that of the FIR, and the deposition made by the respondent No. 2, which indicates that the allegations in the FIR are not believable. 5.4 Ms. Borah also submits that the accused is ready to face the trial and will appear before the learned Trial Court on each and every date, and therefore, she has contended to allow this application. 6. Per contra, Mr. B. Sarma, learned APP, submits that though the informant and the victims are examined by the learned Trial Court, yet, some material Page No.# 5/6 witnesses are yet to be examined and if the accused is enlarged on bail, then there is every possibility of influencing the witnesses. He also submits that the evidence of the victim child is consistent with the allegations made in the FIR and under such circumstances, he has contended to allow this application. 6.1 Ms. Sayeda Mazida Begum, respondent No. 2 in person, however, vehemently opposed the petition. She submits that the accused is a habitual offender and he has subjected her son to various kinds of tortures and also he used to penetrate through the anus of her son, and in various ways has subjected her and her son to torture; and that if he is enlarged on bail, he will commit murder of her and her son. 6.2 The respondent No. 2-in-person, further submits that some of the witnesses are yet to be examined and in the event of releasing the accused on bail, there is possibility of influencing then by intimidation and threatening cannot be ruled out and therefore, she has contended to dismiss the petition. 7. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the application and the documents placed on record and also gone through the statement of the witnesses examined so far. 8. Though at the time of consideration of the bail application, this Court is not entitled to appreciate the evidence, yet, from a bare perusal of the evidence recorded so far, a prima-facie case found to be made out against the accused. 9. Further, it appears that trial is going on and as submitted by Mr. Sarma, Page No.# 6/6 learned APP, some material witnesses are yet to be examined. 10. Also, it is the categorical submission of the respondent No. 2 that if the accused is enlarged on bail, then he will kill her and her minor son, and there is also a possibility of influencing the other witnesses. 11. Under the given facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case, where the privilege of bail can be granted to the accused and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. 12. In terms of the above, this bail application stands disposed of. 13. In view of the order passed today in this bail application, the connected I.A.(Crl.) No. 837/2026, stands closed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant