Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010030022026 2026:GAU-AS:4018 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./452/2026 MRIDUL ALI S/O LATE SAKHAT ALI R/O SARAIGHAT NAGAR, JALUKBARI GUWAHATI WEST, P.S. JALUKBARI, DISTRICT KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:HARENDRANATH PHUKAN S/O JUGESWAR PHUKAN R/O SARAIGHAT NAGAR SADEK ALI PATH JALUKBARI P.S. JALUKBARI DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S K NARGIS, A SAHA,MS N SULTANA,F RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR A.K. HAJONG(R2),MR. S. K. CHAKMA(R2),MR I CHAKMA(R2),MS. D GHOSH(R2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 19-03-2026 Heard Ms. SK Nargis, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. KK Parashar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State as Page No.# 2/4 well as Mr. SK Chakma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. By this application, the petitioner, Mridul Ali, has prayed for bail in connection with Sessions (Spl.) Case No. 103/2025 arising out of Jalukbari P.S. Case No. 71/2025 under Section 140(3) of the BNS read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The case started with lodging of the ejahar by the father of the victim which revealed that on 10.02.2024 at around 10:30 a.m., the minor daughter of the informant was stated to have been abducted by the petitioner under the pretext of love. It is also alleged that on not finding the victim, the informant and others searched for her but could not find her and on suspicion, lodged the ejahar. The Police on completion of the investigation submitted the charge-sheet charging the petitioner as the accused person. Thereafter, charges were framed against the petitioner and the trial proceeded. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the trial, the victim, the informant, the Doctor and the main witnesses were already examined. She further states that there are discrepancies in the statements of the victim made before the Police, before the Magistrate and before the Trial Court, inasmuch as, before the Police, the victim stated that she went to the petitioner’s house, who took her to Kolkata and returned therefrom and that the petitioner had not indulged in any physical relationship with her. Before the Magistrate, the victim stated that she fought with her mother and she ran away from home and went to the house of the petitioner and they both took a train to Kolkata. She further states that out of love relationship, they went and they had Page No.# 3/4 physical relationship too but she was not forced into it and on hearing that Police have reached her house, they returned to Guwahati. Before the Trial Court, however, the victim stated that the petitioner forced her into love relationship by proposing her a number of times and one day, she fought with her mother and the petitioner came to her house and took her to Kolkata and they returned therefrom. As such, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there being discrepancies in the statements, the victim cannot be believed and in view of the same, corroborations are called for, which however according to the learned counsel is missing in the instant case. Mr. Parashar, learned Addl. P.P. submits that the victim is a minor being 14 years 8 months at the time of occurrence and that the petitioner had forced her into a love relationship which is stated by her before the Trial Court and that the medical report also supports the prosecution case as the hymen of the victim was found torn. He as such submits that even if there was a love relationship between the petitioner and the victim, the victim being a minor will have no effect. Mr. Chakma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 also submits that the victim is a minor and she was subjected to physical intimacy by the petitioner without her consent. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, more so due to the fact that there appears some contradictions in the statements of the victim made before different authorities, this Court finds it fit that the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge under the POCSO Act, Kamrup (Metro) under the following conditions:- Page No.# 4/4 (i) the petitioner will not approach the victim under any circumstance; (ii) the petitioner will appear before the Trial Court as and when call for; and (iii) the petitioner will not influence any witnesses connected with this case. The observation made above will not be considered during the trial of the case. Bail application stands disposed of with the above observations. JUDGE Comparing Assistant