Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010000982026 2026:GAU-AS:343 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./5/2026 SABBIR AHMED ALIAS SABIR HUSSAIN S/O - NEJAM UDDIN, R/O- VILL - BADE MAHAKAL, BADARPUR, DISTRICT - SRIBHUMI, P.S. BADARPUR, ASSAM, PIN-788806 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. 2:ABUL HUSSAIN S/O- LATE MUDRIS AIL R/O- VILL - BADE MAHAKAL P.S. - BADARPUR DISTRICT - SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN - 78880 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J M A CHOUDHURY, K G CHOWDHURY,MS. A DAS,MR. S K TALUKDAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER 08.01.2026 Heard Mr. J.M.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.P. Goswami, Page No.# 2/3 learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no. 1 State. 2. The petitioner was named as one of the two accused in a First Information Report [FIR] lodged before the Officer In-Charge, Badarpur Police Station on 15.08.2024. In the FIR, the informant had inter-alia alleged that the daughter of the informant, a minor, was sexually assaulted by the two accused persons on 15.08.2024. The FIR was registered as Badarpur Police Station Case no. 220/2024 under Sections 87/70[2] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita [BNS], 2023 r/w Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences [POCSO] Act, 2012 and investigation ensued. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer [I.O.] laid a charge-sheet before the Special Court [POCSO] of the learned Additional Sessions Judge [FTC], Karimganj [‘the Special Court’, for short] on 30.09.2024 finding a prima facie case established against the two accused persons including the petitioner, for the offences under Sections 87/70[2], BNS r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act. 3. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR, the Charge-Sheet and other materials on record do not contain ingredients of Section 6 of POCSO Act. He has submitted the petitioner is ready and willing to participate in the trial by appearing before the Special Court in person. However, the petitioner has an apprehension that on appearance of the petitioner before the Special Court responding to the summons issued by the Special Court, the prayer for bail, if submitted, is going to be rejected in all possibility for the sole reason that in the Charge-Sheet, the I.O. has made an observation that during the course of investigation, the petitioner was found absconding to evade arrest. 4. The projection that for the reason that the I.O. had made an observation in the Charge-Sheet to the effect that the petitioner was found absconding during the period of investigation evading arrest would result in rejection of the petitioner’s prayer for bail is found to be a misconceived one. Such observation of the I.O. would not amount to a declaration that the petitioner was/is an absconder. Only a Court of competent jurisdiction can declare an accused person as an absconder, that too, following the procedure laid down in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [BNSS], 2023. Page No.# 3/3 5. On submission of the Charge-Sheet, a case has been registered as Special Sessions [POCSO] Case no. 55/2024 by the Special Court and process in the form of summons was issued by the Special Court to the charge-sheeted accused persons including the petitioner, for securing their appearance. No warrant of arrest has yet been issued against the petitioner by the Special Court. 6. A Court designated as Special Court under Section 28 of the POCSO Act tries the offences under the POCSO Act. Such Special Court is also deemed to be a Court of Sessions as per Section 31 of the POCSO Act. Therefore, the Special Court which is deemed to be a Court of Sessions, is conferred with the special powers under Section 483, BNSS to grant bail to a person accused of an offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act as well as the offences under Sections 87/70[2], BNS. 7. For the afore-stated reasons, the apprehension expressed by the petitioner regarding non-grant or rejection of bail without consideration of the case of merits by the Special Court is clearly a misconceived one. Further, if a prayer for bail is granted by this Court in a criminal petition preferred under Section 528, BNSS would amount to grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482, BNSS. In this connection, the decision of Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited vs. State of Maharashtra and others, [2020] 10 SCC 118 can be referred to. 8. In the above view of the matter, this criminal petition is not entertained. It is observed that in the event the petitioner appears before the Special Court in response to the summons received and files an application seeking his release on bail, the Special Court shall consider such application as per the procedure and on its own merits. 9. This order disposes of the criminal petition. JUDGE Comparing Assistant