Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010152592026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2058/2026 KANKAN SARMAH ALIAS KANGKAN VEDACHARY SARMA ALIAS KANGKAN CH SARMAH SON OF LATE SURAJ KUMAR VEDACHARY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SARUPAT GAON, P.O. GHORAMARI, PIN 784105, P.S. CHARIDUAR, DISTRICT SONITPUR, ASSAM, MOBILE NO. 7002778142 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. Y ALI, MR. A K AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 27.07.2026 Heard Mr. A. K. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D. P. Goswami, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. By the application the petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Sessions Case No. 97/2026, pending before the Hon’ble Court of Sessions Judge, Sonitpur. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that an FIR was lodged on 12.04.2013, by the uncle of the victim, stating inter alia, that the victim who was 17 years of age was allegedly kidnapped by the accused person on 11.04.2013, at about 11:00 PM from her house. On the basis of the said FIR, a Charge Sheet was submitted and after completion of the necessary formalities the trial commenced. During the trial 7 (seven) witnesses were examined including the victim and the Investigating Officer is yet to be examined. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the medical examination of the petitioner done on the next day of the incident revealed that the age of the victim was above 18 years and that there were no symptoms of recent sexual intercourse found. He has also placed reliance on the statement made by the victim before the Trial Court, wherein, she had stated in her cross- examination that she was more than 18 years of age and that she made an incorrect statement before the Magistrate that she is 17 years of age. She also stated during her cross-examination that, the accused had tried to commit rape Page No.# 3/4 upon her but when she asked him not to do the same, he had restrained himself. She further stated that she was taken to different room by the accused person and that when the police came on the particular day, the accused person told her to go behind the wash room to which she did and she further stated that, the police had recovered her there from. She as such, submits that the victim was not minor and she had relationship with the petitioner and in pursuant to the same she went to his house voluntarily. 5. On the other hand Mr. D. P. Goswami, the learned APP for the State, submits that the victim in her statement before the Trial Court had specifically stated that when she went out of her house to attend to her nature’s call, the petitioner came and forcefully took her from her house and as such, she submits that the offence under Section 366A is meted out in the instant case. 6. On consideration of the submissions made by the parties, more so, in view of the statements made by the victim in her cross-examination, this Court finds it fit that the petitioner be released on bail. 7. It will not be out of the context to mentioned herein that, the trial is at the stage of conclusion and it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that at fag end of the trial, the bail should not be normally allowed but in the facts of the instant case, it is the considered opinion of this Court that petitioner be released on bail on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand) with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Sonitpur under the following conditions: (i) The petitioners to appear before the Trial Court as and when called for Page No.# 4/4 on each and every dates. (ii) The petitioners not to hamper or tamper the evidence of the case or to influence the witnesses or to go near the victim at any point of time. 8. The Bail Application is accordingly, disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant