Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010257752025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3797/2025 JAHIDUR RAHMAN ALIAS JAHIDUL ISLAM S/O ABDUL RAHMAN R/O VILL GORSINGA BIHIAGAON P.S TEZPUR DIST. SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN- 784025 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE P.P, ASSAM 2:MD ISMAIL HUSSAIN AKAND S/O LATE RIAJ UDDIN AKAND R/OVILLKAROIANI NEPALI LP SCHOOL P.S TEZPUR DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-78402 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. M R DEVI, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. B CHOWDHURY (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 06.01.2026 1. Heard Ms. M. R. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as Mr. B. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the informant. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed by the Page No.# 2/3 petitioner, namely, Jahidur Rahman @ Jahidul Islam who has been detained behind the bars since 25.02.2025 in connection with Special POCSO Case No. 38/2025. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 23.02.2025, the father of the victim girl had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Borghat Police Station, inter alia, alleging that his minor daughter aged about 8 years (victim girl) has been raped by the petitioner on 20.02.2025 due to which the victim girl became unwell and she suffered injuries in her private parts. After filing of the FIR, Tezpur P.S. Case No. 131/2025 was registered under Section 65(2) of the BNS read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and investigation was initiated. 4. On completion OF the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the Court of learned Special Judge, Sonitpur and trial is proceeding. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been detained behind the bars since 25.02.2025 and the victim girl and the informant have already been examined. She further submits that considering the period of detention as well as the fact that the victim girl and the informant have already been examined, the petitioner may be allowed to go on bail as he is ready to co-operate in the investigation. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 have vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the present petitioner on the ground that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioner on record. They submit that the victim girl has categorically implicated the petitioner of having committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. They also submit that the Page No.# 3/3 manner in which the offence was committed also caused physical injuries on the victim girl. It is also submitted by them that six more witnesses are yet to be examined and considering the incriminating materials and nature of the offence involved in this case, bail should not be granted to the present petitioner. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record including the deposition of the victim girl recorded by the Trial Court in Special POCSO Case No. 38/2025. 8. On perusal of the deposition, it appears that the victim girl was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the present petitioner which caused injuries on her private parts. It also appears that other witnesses who have been examined have also implicated the petitioner. Further, six more witnesses are yet to be examined. 9. Considering the incriminating materials available on record against the present petitioner as well as the nature of offence involved in this case and the fact that six witnesses are yet to be examined, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the present petitioner at this stage. 10. The prayer for bail is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant