Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010150182026 2026:GAU-AS:14659 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2042/2026 RITIK ALIAS HRITHIK ALIAS HRITIK YADAV ALIAS MICHAEL SON OF SURAJ YADAV, RESIDENT OF REWA BAGH, LANE NO. 2, P.S.- NAHARDARWAJA, DISTRICT- DEWAS, MADHYA PRADESH VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:ANUPAMA BARMAN DEV WIFE OF SURAJIT DEV RESIDENT OF CHANDANPUR WARD NO. 8 P.S. BARPETA ROAD DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM. (INFORMANT Advocate for the Petitioner : MR U PANDEY, S K DAS,A GHOSAL,J SINGPHO,MR. M BISWAS,MR. A TARAFDAR,A MISHRA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. V A CHOWDHURY(R2),MS. C CHOUDHURY(R2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 28-09-2026 1. Heard Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner who has filed this application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for bail as he Page No.# 2/4 is behind bars since 12.08.2025 in connection with Sessions Special P.S. Case No. 195/2025 arising out of CID Cyber Police Station Case No. 08/2025 under Sections 294A/376(3)/507 of the IPC and Sections 66D/66E/67A of the IT Act and Sections 4/14(1)/14(2) of the POCSO Act. 2. Heard Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State and learned counsel Ms. C. Choudhury for the respondent No. 2. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is a young lad of 20 years. He has been behind bars for 1 year 1 month and 10 days. It is submitted that there is an allegation of forceful sexual assault against the victim. The petitioner and the victim had a love relationship. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is basically that he had uploaded some objectionable videos and photographs of the victim and the punishment is only up to 5 years. The victim through the course of investigation and trial improved her case but it has surfaced even through her false allegations that she had a consensual relationship with the petitioner. No medical evidence of rape has been proved as the victim was not examined by the doctor after this incident. The offence was committed in the year 2022, whereas the FIR was lodged on 19.07.2025. Thus, there appears to be no reason to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 laid stress in her argument that the victim's evidence clearly depicts that earlier the case was lodged against the petitioner, but on an understanding that the petitioner would not harass the victim, the FIR was withdrawn and this led to the delay of the present FIR. Page No.# 3/4 6. It is submitted that 11 witnesses are from Madhya Pradesh and the petitioner himself is from Madhya Pradesh and he is a flight risk. Once the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he might harass the victim and as the victim is apprehending threats from the petitioner, the conduct of the petitioner does not entitle him to bail. He has circulated articles which are harmful for the victim's reputation. 7. The learned counsel has submitted that it is not true that the petitioner is 20 years of age. He is at present 25 years old and the victim was a minor at the time of the incident. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. P. S. Lahkar has stated that the evidence of the victim is consistent to her statement under Section 183 of the BNSS. The petitioner is indeed a flight risk. Despite resistance, the petitioner kept uploading objectionable videos tarnishing the reputation of the victim. The scanned copies of the Trial Court Records reveal that only one witness has been examined so far. There is every possibility that the other witnesses may be influenced. 9. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. 10.I have considered the submission that the victim has already been examined. Indeed there are incriminating materials against the petitioner which led to the submission of the charge-sheet. The other witnesses are yet to be examined. 11.I have considered the submission that the petitioner is also a young lad and he is willing to abide by any stringent bail conditions, if imposed upon him. It is asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not a flight risk. Page No.# 4/4 12.In view of the foregoing discussions, it appears that bail may be granted to the petitioner subject to certain conditions. I have also considered the submission that the petitioner is willing to co-operate with the trial. 13.Considering the entire aspect of the matter, the petitioner is enlarged on bail of Rs. 50,000/- with two local sureties of like amount and one surety has to be a Government employee. The bail is granted to the petitioner under the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not go anywhere near the vicinity of the victim or exercise threats to the victim or the witnesses; (ii) The petitioner shall refrain from such activities with which he is alleged; and (iii) The petitioner shall not jump the bail and co-operate with the remaining part of the trial. 14. On breach of any of the bail conditions, the Court is at liberty to immediately cancel the bail granted to the petitioner. 15. This bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant