Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010233932025 2026:GAU-AS:271 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3430/2025 SOFIQUL ISLAM S/O- ABDUL RAHMAN. R/O- VILL.- GOHAINDOLONI, P.O.- SONAPUR, P.S.- BIHPURIA, DIST.- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN- 787054 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:MRS. SARIFA BEGUM W/O- MD. NUR ISLAM. R/O- VILL.- NO.1 BOGOLI P.O.- HARMUTY P.S.- LALUK DIST.- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN- 78416 Advocate for the Petitioner : ALHAJJ I UDDIN, MRS. ROMA ENGTIPI,MR ROBIUL HOQUE,MRS. R MOMTAZ Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, B DUTTA (R-2),I AMIN(R-2),MR. B. KUMAR(R-2) Page No.# 2/4 :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA Date on which judgment is reserved : 06.01.2025 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 08.01.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the : No. operative part of the judgment ? Whether the full judgment has been : Yes pronounced? JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) (Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, J) 1. Heard Mr. Alhajj I Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam and Mr. B. Kumar, learned Legal Aid Counsel. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for bail of the accused/petitioner namely Safiqul Islam, in connection with Spl. (POCSO) Case No. 63 of 2024 arising out of Laluk Police Station Case No. 72 of 2024 registered under Sections 366 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, pending before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Lakhimpur, wherein Charge sheet was submitted under Section 366 IPC read with Page No.# 3/4 Section 4 of POCSO Act. 3. The case against the petitioner briefly is that on 10.05.2024, at about 4:00 am, the daughter of the complainant, aged about 15 years 9 months was missing from her house. After searching for her, the complainant side came to know that the present petitioner had kidnapped her daughter and they were at Laluk Daily Market. After getting the said information, both victim and petitioner were apprehended at Laluk market. 4. The case was initially registered under Section 366 IPC and subsequently, on the basis of further investigation, Section 4 of the POCSO Act was also added. Subsequently, upon completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted and charges under Section 366 IPC, read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act have been framed and the trial has commenced in the course of which five witnesses have already been examined including the informant as well as the victim. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there are major contradictions between what the victim has stated in her evidence before the Court and what she had stated before the Magistrate and that it would be apparent from her statements before the Magistrate that is was a case of love relationship and the sexual intercourse if any, was consensual in nature which is also supported by the fact that as per the medical report, there is no evidence of recent forceful sexual intercourse and no external injury has been detected at the time of examination. Moreover, the age of the victim is also Page No.# 4/4 doubtful as the prosecution has sought to prove a school certificate which was issued in the year 2018 and admittedly; the same was obtained for the purpose of obtaining NRC. It is therefore submitted that the evidence regarding the age of the victim is also extremely shaky. 6. Without entering into the merits of the evidence recorded by the learned Trial Court, it appears to the court that there are some contradictions in the statements of the victim before the police, Magistrate and before the Court, which of course, it would be open for the prosecution to explain at the subsequent stage of the trial. However, having regard to the period of detention since 16.05.2024 and the fact that the vital witnesses have already been examined, further detention of the petitioner is not considered necessary. 7. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is allowed. 8. The petitioner abovenamed shall be released on bail of Rs. 50,000/- with two surties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. 9. It is further provided that the petitioner shall regularly appear at the trial and shall not try to influence the remaining witnesses in any manner. 10. The bail application stands allowed as above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant