GAHC010237382025

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

Case No. : Bail Appln./3489/2025

REZZAK ALI

S/O LT. SURMAN ALI

RESIDENT OF VILL NO 1 MAJRABARI, PO BHALATOL, PS BIJNI, DITRICT

CHIRANG, BTR, STATE ASSAM, PIN 783390

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR

TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM

2:JAHER ALI

S/O LT. MANNAF ALI

RESIDENT OF VILL SILGHAGRI

PO DAKSHIN BIJNI

PS MANIKPUR

DIST BONGAIGAON

ASSAM

PIN 87339

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J ABBAS, SK ABDULLAH

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. D K AGARWALA (R-2)

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA

ORDER

17.12 .2025 Date :

Heard Mr. J. Abbas, learned counsel appearing for the accused/applicant. Also heard Mr. K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam and Mr. D. K.

Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. This is an application under 483 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for bail to the accused/applicant in connection with Manikpur P.S. Case No. 108/2025 registered under Section 64(2) of BNS, 2023 read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

3. The accused/applicant was arrested on 23.09.2025 and since then he is behind the bars.

4. The gist of the allegation as alleged in the FIR is that informant’s minor daughter was taken by the accused/applicant in a nearby jungle and wanted to commit rape on her. On her raising hue and cry, the people gathered there and the accused was caught and he was handed over to the police.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the accused applicant submits that no rape was committed by the accused/applicant. In fact, the accused applicant is in love relationship with the daughter of the informant and they were just talking and chatting when the people gathered and handed him over to the police station. He further submits that the arrest memo which was handed over to him was in English and he could not understand the language. In view of the aforesaid grounds, the accused applicant should be granted bail since he is inside the jail for last 85 days.

6. The learned Addl. P.P., on the other hand, submits that there are incriminating materials against the accused applicant. Therefore, at this stage the bail should not be granted to him.

7. Mr. D. K. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 subscribed to the arguments made by the learned APP.

8. This Court has gone through the materials available on record as well as heard the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the respective parties.

9. On perusal of the materials available on record including the TCR, this Court is of prima facie opinion that at this stage the privilege of bail should not be granted to the accused/applicant. Therefore, the instant bail application is rejected.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant