Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 1890 (GAU)

RAJBIR RABIDAS @ DIP @ DEEP RABIDAS v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR

Bail Appln./4154/2025 · 2026-01-26

Parthivjyoti Saikia

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010287572025 2026:GAU-AS:834 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./4154/2025 RAJBIR RABIDAS @ DIP @ DEEP RABIDAS S/O LATE NANDALAL ROBIDAS OF HARIJON BASTI, COLLEGE ROAD, AMBICAPATTY, P.S.- SILCHAR, DIST.- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788001 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:SUDIP PAUL CHOUDHURY S/O LATE SATYA BHUSHAN CHOUDHURY R/O AMBICAPATTY MAULOBI ROAD P.S.- SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN-78800 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C BISWAS, MS. S. CHANDA,MR. MEHUL SHAH,MS. J GHOSH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, DARAK ULLAH, AMICUS CURIAE FOR R-2 Page No.# 2/3 :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 27.01.2026 Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam as well as Mr. D. Ullah, the learned Amicus Curiae representing the Respondent No.2. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for regular bail to the petitioner, namely- Rajbir Rabidas @ Deep who was arrested in connection with Silchar P.S. Case No.428/2020 (G.R. No.650/2020). 3. The informant being the father, stays at Andhra Pradesh for his job with ONGC. His wife is an employee in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar. She and her minor daughter stay at home. The mother remains absent in the house during the day as she has to attend her office. Their daughter stays alone in the house during the day. 4. The informant engaged some people for construction of some structures in the house. It is alleged that the petitioner being one of the workers, had developed friendly relationship with the daughter. During the day, he took the daughter in his motorcycle and roamed around town. He even made some proposals to her which can be termed as illegal. One day, the petitioner allegedly forced to take the girl with him. In the meantime, the father reached home from Andhra Pradesh and he came to know about those facts. So, he immediately lodged an FIR before police alleging the aforesaid facts. Police registered the case under Sections 341/354(B) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act. 5. Today, Mr. Biswas has referred to the medical examination report of the victim. This report disclosed that the victim was above 18 years of age but below 19 years. Page No.# 3/3 Mr. Biswas has submitted that if the victim was above 18 years of age, no case under Section 8 of the POCSO can exist against the present petitioner. 6. Mr. Parasar has objected to this bail application on the ground that the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023 is not available with the record. 7. Mr. Ullah has submitted that after filing of the charge sheet, the trial court issued bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner and the same returned without execution. Mr. Ullah has pointed out that the learned trial court committed error while issuing non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner under the given circumstance. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 9. After filling of a charge sheet, bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner, which returned unserved. When non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued, it was executed and the petitioner was arrested and remanded to custody. 10. Be that as it may, today I have decided to agree with Mr. Biswas that if the medical report shows that the victim was above 18 years of age at the time of occurrence, no case under POCSO is made out against the present petitioner. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner no longer deserves to be detained in custody. His bail application is allowed. 12. The petitioner Rajbir Rabidas @ Deep shall be released on bail of ₹25,000/- with a surety of like to the satisfaction of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Special Judge, POCSO), Cachar, Silchar. With the aforesaid direction, the bail application is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant