THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM & Anr.

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S K NARGIS, F RAHMAN,MS N SULTANA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. MASUM ALAM (R-2) BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER

19.12.2025 Heard Ms S K Nargis, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr D P Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. Mr R Alam, learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 2 Page No.# 2/4

#2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, has been filed by the petitioner, namely Swahadat Miya @ Sahadur, who was arrested on 05.04.2025, in connection with Sessions (Spl.) Case No. 93/2025, arising out of Chandmari PS Case No. 263/2024, under Section 65(1) of the BNS, 2023, read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 2012.

#3. The brief facts of the case is that on 21.10.2024, one complainant, namely, Manowara Begum, wife of Late Md Naymuddin, PS – Chandmari, District, Kamrup (Metro), lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of Chandmari Police Station, stating that she has two children, one boy and one girl and she is working in a different house. Her daughter is aged about 15 years studies at 7th standard and her son studies at 5th standard. Her daughter was not well for the last several days and due to which, she admitted her daughter at GMCH and after treatment, she came to know that her daughter was 7 months pregnant. When she asked the matter to her daughter, she informed that her daughter was pregnant by one person, namely, Swahadat Miya @ Sahadur (petitioner, herein), of No. 6 Gate and worked at Grocery shop. On receipt of the said FIR, the case was registered as Chandmari PS Case No. 263/2024, under Section 65(1) of the BNS, 2023, read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and, thereafter, investigation was started.

#3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 05.04.2025, and produced before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), on the same day and on his production, the said Court sent him to jail and since then, he is inside the jail till today.

#4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during investigation Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the victim girl, and thereafter, he produced the victim girl before the learned JMFC, Kamrup (Metro), for recording her statement under Section 164 CrPC, and also conducted medical examination. Thereafter, Page No.# 3/4 after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the Charge Sheet against the petitioner under Section 65(1) of the BNS, 2023, read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, on 30.04.2025. Thereafter, the copy of the charge sheet was served to the accused petitioner and charges were framed in the present case and thereafter, the trial proceeded. The learned Trial Court examined the victim and the complainant as PW-1 and PW-2, respectively.

#5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim and the petitioner were in love since long back and the family members of both the family agreed to their relationship and consented for their marriage on attaining the majority by the victim girl. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been behind bars since 05.04.2025, i.e., for about 8 months. Therefore, she has prayed that considering the length of detention, the bail prayer of the petitioner may be considered.

#6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has objected to the bail prayer.

#7. Mr R Alom, learned counsel for the informant/respondent No. 2, states that the informant does not apprehend any influence or risk from the petitioner, if he is allowed to remain on bail.

#8. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was behind bars since 05.04.2025, i.e., for about 8 months and that the respondent No. 2 does not apprehend any risk, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner may be granted the privilege of bail. Accordingly, this Court, therefore directs that the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs 25,000/- with two suitable sureties of the like amount, at least one of who shall be a government servant serving either with the Government of Assam or with the Central Government and at least one who should have immovable property, to the satisfaction of the Learned Special Judge (POCSO), Kamrup (Metro), subject to the conditions. i) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge (POCSO) without prior written permission; Page No.# 4/4 ii) The petitioner shall not hamper and tamper with the evidence of the case; iii) 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. iv) The petitioner shall not try to contact the victim or the informant, whatsoever, till conclusion of the trial. v) The petitioner shall appear before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), as and when required to do so; vi) the Learned Special Judge (POCSO), shall be at liberty to impose such other condition or conditions as may be deemed necessary to ensure the participation of the petitioner in the trial. vii) The petitioner shall not engage in any illegal activity of similar nature in the future. vi) The prosecuting authority shall be at liberty to bring any violation of the conditions imposed to the notice of the competent court and request for a recall/cancellation of bail.

#9. The Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant