Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010022142026 2026:GAU-AS:2541 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./417/2026 DHRUBA KALITA S/O KAMDEB KALITA R/O BOGHMARA, KATHALMURI, NALBARI, P.O. AND P.S. PATACHARKUCHI, PIN-781326, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P P MEDHI, MR G BARGAYARY,MAYURI GOGOI,MS. U ROY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 19.02.2026 Heard Ms. M. Gogoi, learned counsel for the accused-applicant. Also heard Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, representing the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, praying for granting bail Page No.# 2/3 to the accused-applicant in connection with Sessions Case No. 65/2025, arising out of Mukalmua P.S. Case No. 453/2018, registered under Section 366 of the IPC and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. 3. An FIR was lodged on 10.12.2018, by one Shri Lalita Nath, alleging that one Moukib Ali had kidnapped his daughter and thereafter, left her in the house of Dhruba Kalita (present accused). It was also suspected that his daughter was earlier also taken to the house of Dhruba Kalita. 4. On receipt of the FIR, the Police registered Mukalmua P.S. Case No. 453/2018, under the aforementioned Sections. After investigation, police filed Charge-sheet and thereafter, charge was framed against the accused-applicant, under Section 366A of the IPC read with Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. The case is pending before the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Nalbari, in the evidence stage. 5. The learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the accused-applicant is not involved in inducing the victim girl for any sexual exploitation, therefore, 366A of the IPC is not applicable in the instant case and the charge has been wrongly framed against the accused-applicant. She further submits that since the accused-applicant has spent 7(seven) months inside the jail, he should be allowed to go on bail at this stage. 6. Mr. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P., on the other hand, opposes the prayer of bail at this stage. 7. This Court has heard the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the respective parties and also perused the case records. 8. Taking into account the entire facts of the case and taking into account his length of detention, this Court is of the considered opinion that at this stage, the accused- applicant should be granted bail. Accordingly, it is directed that the accused-applicant to be released forthwith on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with surety of like nature to the satisfaction of the learned District & Page No.# 3/3 Sessions Judge, Nalbari, subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the accused-applicant shall appear before the Trial Court as and when required and fully cooperate with the investigation; (ii) that the accused-applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Trial Court; (iii) that the accused-applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor hamper the investigation in any manner whatsoever; 9. In view of the aforesaid directions, this Bail Application stands disposed of, as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant