Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010053822026 2026:GAU-AS:9628 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./807/2026 SADDAM HUSSAIN S/O. MAMUD ALI,R/O TULSHI NAGAR,P.S. SONAPUR,DISTRICT KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE P.P., ASSAM. 2:MIHI PHANGCHO S/O. LATE KHATAN PHANGCH R/O. VILLAGE BARKASARANG P.S. SONAPURDISTRICT KAMRUP M ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. Y SIKDAR, MR D J DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. P DAS(AMICUS CURIAE, R2) BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA O R D E R 15.07.2026 Heard Mr. Y. Sikdar, learned counsel for the accused applicant. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State as well as Ms. P. Das, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the respondent No.2/informant. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 by Page No.# 2/3 the accused applicant Saddam Hussain, praying for granting bail to the accused applicant in connection with Sessions Special Case No.226/2025 under Sections 87/64(2) of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 3. The gist of the case as alleged in the FIR is that the opposite party No.2/informant lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Sonapur Police Station on 16.10.2025, stating that on 15.10.2025 at around 01:00 P.M., the informant’s minor daughter namely ‘X’, aged about 16 years, left for her school situated at Chamata Pathar, but did not return home by evening. It was alleged that later, the informant came to know that the accused applicant took his daughter by enticing her with promise of marriage. In view of the aforesaid FIR, police registered Sonapur P.S Case No.175/2025 under Section 87 of the BNS, 2023. 4. Learned counsel for the accused applicant submits that the accused applicant is already behind the bars for 272 days. He submits that the medical report of the alleged victim girl does not support the case of the informant as narrated in the FIR. He further submits that out of the 09(nine) prosecution witnesses named in the charge-sheet, only 04(four) witnesses have been examined till date and the trial will take considerable time. He submits that there are inconsistencies in the statement of the victim girl vis-a-vis the allegations made in the FIR. In view of the aforesaid, he submits that taking into account the long detention of the accused applicant and the fact that the trial will take considerable time for its conclusion, the accused applicant should be granted bail at this stage. 5. Scan copies of the TCR has been received and the same has been perused by this Court. Page No.# 3/3 6. Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer of bail of the accused applicant by submitting that there are sufficient incriminating materials showing the involvement of the accused applicant in the instant case. He submits that trial is going on in a reasonable speed and it is likely to be completed very soon and therefore, he submits that at this stage no interference is required from this Court. 7. Ms. P. Das, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the informant/respondent No.2 submits that the victim girl is a minor and she has been taken away by the accused applicant with the promise of marriage and the offence has been committed by the accused applicant as alleged in the FIR. She further supports the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and opposes the prayer for bail of the accused applicant. 8. On perusal of the materials available in the TCR as well as the certified copies of the depositions of the witnesses produced by the learned counsel for the accused applicant and also taking into account of the fact that the trial is going on in a reasonable speed, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the accused applicant at this stage. 9. Accordingly, the instant bail applicant is rejected. 10. The bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant