##PAGE1##

Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010267732025

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : Bail Appln./3900/2025

ABUL KALAM AZAD

S/O- LT. ALTAB ALI

R/O- KADOMONI PATHAR, P.S.- JURIA, DISTRICT- NAGAON, ASSAM

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR

REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM

2:KULSUMA KHATUN

W/O IMRAN HUSSAIN

R/O 7 NO. CHITALMARI PATHAR

P.O. CHITALMARI BILL

P.S. JURIA

DSIT. NAGAON

ASSAM

PIN-78212

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M H AHMED, I AMIN

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. B. KUMAR (R-2),MR ROBIUL HOQUE(R-2)

BEFORE

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR

ORDER

Date : 19-12-2025

Heard Mr. M.H Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.P.

Page No.# 2/6

Goswami, learned Addl. P.P appearing for the State and Mr. R. Haque, learned

counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 and Ms. B.M Deka, learned Standing

counsel appearing for the Education department.

This application has been filed under section 483 of BNSS praying for granting

bail to the accused petitioner in connection with Juria P.S Case No. 264/2025 u/s

8/9(f)/12 of the POCSO Act.

By the earlier order dated 11.12.2025, this Court had recorded as follows.

3. This bail application arises from an FIR dated 25.10.2025,

lodged by Kulsuma Khatun (Vice President of 7 No.

Chitalmari Pathar MKB Muktab Bidyalaya) wherein an

allegation had been leveled against the accused applicant

that while serving as the Headmaster of the aforesaid school,

the accused applicant had been indulging in acts of sexually

harassing the minor children of the school and on the specific

date, three minor children were inappropriately touched by

the accused applicant. Accordingly, Sutirpar PP GDE No. 344

dated 24.10.2025 was made and forwarded to the OC, Juria

Police Station, where the records were received and

accordingly, Juria PS Case No. 264/2025, under Sections

8/9(f)/12 of the POCSO Act was registered.

4. This matter was moved on 04.12.2025 and the matter was

fixed today calling for the Case Diary. The Case Diary is yet

to be received.

5. The Office Note dated 08.12.2025 shows that the service

report on the respondent No. 2 is awaited. However, Mr R.

Hoque, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of

the respondent No. 2 by filing Vakalatnama. The learned

counsel submits that his client has received information of

this case through a friend and, therefore, he has been

instructed to appear today.

6. When the matter was taken up the learned counsel for the

applicant has submitted that the allegations leveled in the

FIR are wholly false and had been made only because new

funds have come to the school and there was an enmity with

some persons who had manipulated the circumstances to

have the FIR lodged.

Page No.# 3/6

7. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has

submitted that respondent No. 2 would have no objection if

the privilege of bail is allowed to the applicant herein, since

the parents of the alleged victims as referred to in the FIR

have submitted apology letters to the respondent No. 2,

stating that the they had instigated the respondent No. 2 to

file the case on wrong premises. The records produced by

the learned counsel for the applicant shows that the minor

children had already given statements under Section 183 of

the BNSS, 2023, against the applicant.

8. The situation created in the present case is a sorry state of

affairs. When allegations are leveled against the Head of the

Institute, where minor children are sent for education and

then in bail proceedings, the informant comes up to state that

the FIR was lodged on misinformation, this Court cannot take

the matter lightly. It is also noticed that it was not the parents

of the alleged students who were ill-treated at the hands of

the accused applicant who have filed the FIR. The students

before the learned Magistrate while recording their

statements under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023, have

implicated the applicant as reflected in the orders of the

learned Special Judge (POCSO). The accused applicant has