Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010069582026 2026:GAU-AS:6382 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1028/2026 SAHIL ALI @ MD. SAHIL ALI S/O- SUVAN ALI. R/O- VILL. NO.1 PANKAGRAM TELGARAM, P.S.- NUMALIGAR, DIST.- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM. 2:SMTI. JUNTI NATH W/O- SRI GHANA NATH. R/O- VILL.- BORBARI P.S.- DHAKUAKHANA DIST.- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M KHAN, MR. S ISLAM,MS J AKTAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. P CHOUDHURY, AMICUS CURIAE, R-2 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 11-05-2026 Heard Mr. M Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Page No.# 2/4 Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent No. 1 as well as Ms. P Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent No. 2. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with prayer for bail for the accused/petitioner, Sahil Ali @ Md. Sahil Ali, in connection with Special (P) Case No. 38/2026 arising out of Dhakuakhana P.S. Case No. 03/2026 u/s 87 of BNS, 2023. 3. The scanned copy of the TCR along with the case diary have been received and perused by this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the case was registered under Section 87 of the BNS and charge-sheet was also been filed under the said Section of law. But, subsequently, there was an observation of the Court that it ought to have been prosecuted by the Court of the learned Special Judge, as there are some materials which attracts the POCSO Act. He further submits that though the case has been pending before the learned Special Judge but from the materials in the case record as well as the case diary, it is very much evident that the case does not fall under the POCSO Act. However, the petitioner has been in custody since the last 117 (one hundred seventeen) days and further custodial detention of the petitioner would not be necessary and the petitioner is ready and willing to appear before the learned Trial Court below as and when called for. 5. Mr. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that charge of the case is not yet framed and it is yet to be framed and that the case is at present being tried by the learned Special Judge, POCSO. He submits that there are Page No.# 3/4 some contradictions in the statements made by the victim under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS. He raised objection in allowing him to go on bail, at this stage. 6. Ms. P Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent No. 2 submits that there may be some contradictions in the statements made by the victim, but it is an undisputed fact that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident and thus there may be some hampering and tempering with the evidence of the minor victim. She accordingly raises objection and submits that bail should not be granted to the present petitioner. 7. Hearing the submissions made by both the sides and on going through the TCR as well as the case diary and also the statements made by the victim under Section 180 and 183 of the BNSS and other relevant facts, this Court is of the opinion that further custodial detention of the petitioner may not be necessary for the purpose of trial of the case. Accordingly, I find it is a fit case to enlarge the accused/petitioner on bail. 8. Accordingly, the accused/petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, under the POCSO Act Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur. The accused/petitioner, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and Page No.# 4/4 (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned CJM, Kamrup (M) without prior permission. 9. The Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant