Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010162632025 2026:GAU-AS:1004 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1959/2025 NITAI ALIAS NITAY MANDAL SON OF NORON ALIAS NAREN MANDAL RESIDENT OF VILL- BATGAON, P.S. SARTHEBARI, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-782105 MOBILE NO.6000846830 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SMTI. SIB MANDAL W/O RAJU MANDAL VILL- JOSHODAR PAM P.S. SARTHEBARI DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN-78210 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R SARMA, MS. S D SAIKIA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. D GOGOI, Amicus Curiae (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 29.01.2026 Heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. D. Gogoi, Page No.# 2/3 learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No. 2. 2. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Sarthebari Police Station Case No. 145 of 2024 registered under Section 140(3)/65(1)/351(3) of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act. 3. The FIR dated 21.10.2024 lodged by the mother of the victim revealed that on 16.10.2024 at about 12:00 noon her minor daughter aged about 17 years was forcefully boarded in a motorbike and was taken to Bahari, where the victim was raped by the petitioner. It is also stated that the petitioner left her daughter at a village. 4. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although allegations are made against the petitioner in the FIR, the actual fact is that the petitioner and the victim and her mother were staying together and that there was a decision taken by the parties that when the victim would attain her majority, the petitioner would marry her. Mr. Sarma, has stated these facts at Paragraph No. 4 of the petition. 5. Mr. R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has placed the statements of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, wherein, she has clearly indicated that the petitioner to have forcefully taken her to a jungle like area and raped her. He submits that the fact narrated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is nowhere reflected that the case diary, i.e. the none of the statements of the witnesses. 6. Mr. Gogoi, the learned Amicus Curiae for the informant have also supported the version made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and has submitted that it is a fact that the petitioner has forcefully took the victim to a jungle like area and raped her. Page No.# 3/3 7. In view of the submissions made and in view of the statement made by the victim before the Magistrate as well as the established fact in the instant case, this Court is not inclined to grant interim bail to the petitioner at this stage. 8. The petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant