Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040008372026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : BA/50/2026 Fajila Khatun Wife of Muktar Hussain, permanent resident of Dharmapur No.3, Lakhimpur District, Assam 784160 and presently residing at Lekhi, PO and PS Naharlagun, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 2 Ors represented through the PP of AP 2:ABC Age: 0 Occupation : represented by the father of minor victim No.1 3:XYZ Age: 0 Occupation : represented by the father of minor victim No. Advocate for the Petitioner : Kemo Lollen, Tojum Tao,Maryum Sora,Geli Taye,D Ado Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Legal Aid Counsel,Dusu Rillung -BEFORE- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER 29.06.2026 Heard Mr. K. Lollen, learned counsel for the accused petitioner. Also Page No.# 2/4 heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Addl. PP for the State and Ms. D. Rillung, learned counsel for the victim girl. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for release of the accused person on regular bail who has been arrested in connection with Itanagar Women P.S. Case No. 35/2026 under Section 96 of BNS, 2023 read with Section 6 (1)/17/21 (i) of POCSO Act. 3. The case of the accused petitioner is that on 26.04.2026, a written FIR was lodged by one Shri Pradip Das against 3 (three) persons including the present accused alleging that his minor daughter aged about 16 years with 2 (two) friends aged about 17 & 18 years. It is further stated that during enquiry, it was revealed that those girls were taken by the accused person and later on, they were found from a Hotel room and the girls were subjected to sexual abuse. Accordingly, the aforesaid case was registered and the accused person was arrested on 26.04.2026 and since then the accused are under the custody for about 64 (sixty four) days. 4. The case records, as called for, has been produced and perused. 5. This Court is conscious that under the provision of POCSO Act, a child below the age of 18 years is incapable of giving consent and therefore, any observation regarding consent is irrelevant for determining the guilt or otherwise of the accused. The merit of the prosecution case shall be decided only during the trial. 6. However, while considering the present bail application, the Court is required to examine the nature of allegations against the accused person, the material collected during the investigation and the necessity for his Page No.# 3/4 continued detention. 7. Upon perusal of the Case Diary, it is found that there is no specific allegation against the present accused person for commission of any penetrative sexual assault against any of the alleged victim. The material collected during the investigation prima facie indicates that the allegation of sexual assault is directed against the other accused persons. However, so far as the present accused is concerned, the allegation is that he was accompanying the group. 8. The Case Diary further reveals that the present accused was accompanied by his own girlfriend who is admittedly a major. There is no allegation by the said major girl that the present accused person has subjected her to any forceful sexual assault. Rather, it appears that his girlfriend has also been implicated by the Police on the allegation that she being a major might have induced other two minor girl to accompany the group. Whether such allegation is true is a matter to be decided by the Trial Court. 9. The present accused has remained in judicial custody for about 64 days since his arrest, investigation has substantially progressed. There is no material placed before this Court to indicate that his further custodial detention is necessary or that if released on bail, he is likely to abscond, tamper with the evidence or influence the prosecution witnesses. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor on record fairly submits that in the instant case there is no question of any inducement as the alleged victim themselves have admitted that it was they, who forced the accused to take them and not the accused. Page No.# 4/4 10. Considering the role attributed to the present accused, the period of custodial detention already undergone and the stage of investigation, however, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail. 11. Accordingly, the accused person, namely, Inzamamul Haque is directed to 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 (POCSO), Yupia, subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the accused person shall co-operate and appear before the learned Trial Court on every day unless exempted; (ii) that the accused person shall not directly or indirectly contact, induce, threat or influence the victim or any prosecution witness; (iii) that the accused person shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner; and (iv) that the accused person shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court without prior permission. 12. Any violation of the above conditions shall entail cancellation of bail in accordance in law. 13. In terms of the above, this bail application is accordingly allowed and disposed of. JUDGE CHECKED & VERIFIED Digitally signed by Talom Tali Date: 2026.06.30 17:27:53 +05'30'