Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010009002026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/173/2026 SKMD AMINUL ISLAM ALIAS AMINUL ISLAM SON OF ALA UDDIN R/O JHAMARCHAR PT.IV, P.S. FAKIRGANJ DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:MOZAHARUL ISLAM S/O HAJI ABDUS SATTAR VILL- PODMER ALGA PT.II P.S. FAKIRGANJ DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PHONE NO. 9678268050 PIN- 78333 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR F HAQUE, MR A ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS T PARASHAR BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 11.03.2026 Page No.# 2/3 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. F. Haque for the petitioner SMKD Aminul Islam @Aminul Islam who has filed this application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with prayer for pre-arrest bail as he is shown as an absconder in connection with Special POCSO Case No. 227/2025 under Sections 341/324/384/506 of the IPC read with Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and read with Sections 67(B) of the IT Act. 2. Heard Mr. K. Basihya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State and Ms. T. Parashar, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner and the victim had a love relationship and both the families were aware of the love affair between the petitioner and the victim. It is further submitted that the petitioner was coerced to solemnize his marriage with the victim girl and when the petitioner asked them to wait so that the victim may attain majority and be of legally marriageable age, a false case was slammed against the petitioner. This impelled the victim’s uncle to lodge the FIR against the petitioner. 4. The informant was also threatened by the petitioner who assaulted him causing injuries on his person. It is also alleged that the petitioner snatched away money and luggage from the informant. Further, it is submitted that it has been falsely alleged that the victim was blackmailed by the petitioner. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned Amicus Curiae has raised objection stating that the petitioner is booked under the POCSO Act. The petitioner is not entitled to bail considering the gravity of the offence. The conduct of the petitioner clearly reveals that the petitioner may exercise threats to the witnesses and may influence the trial. Page No.# 3/3 6. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. 7. I have considered the submission that the petitioner is willing to abide by any stringent bail conditions, if imposed upon him. The petitioner being a local resident is not a flight risk. 8. Considering all aspects, petition is allowed. In the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with a suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court under the conditions that: (i) The petitioner shall co-operate with the trial, (ii) The petitioner shall not exercise threats to the victim or go anywhere near the vicinity of the victim, (iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence and influence witnesses, and (iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission till completion of trial. 9. On breach of any of the bail conditions, the learned Trial Court is at liberty to immediately cancel the bail granted to the petitioner. JUDGE Comparing Assistant