[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 8 January, 2026
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010233932025
2026:GAU-AS:271
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./3430/2025
SOFIQUL ISLAM
S/O- ABDUL RAHMAN.
R/O- VILL.- GOHAINDOLONI, P.O.- SONAPUR, P.S.- BIHPURIA, DIST.-
LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN- 787054
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP BY THE PP, ASSAM
2:MRS. SARIFA BEGUM
W/O- MD. NUR ISLAM.
R/O- VILL.- NO.1 BOGOLI
P.O.- HARMUTY
P.S.- LALUK
DIST.- LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
PIN- 78416
Advocate for the Petitioner : ALHAJJ I UDDIN, MRS. ROMA ENGTIPI,MR ROBIUL
HOQUE,MRS. R MOMTAZ
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, B DUTTA (R-2),I AMIN(R-2),MR. B. KUMAR(R-2)
Page No.# 2/4
:::BEFORE:::
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
Date on which judgment is reserved : 06.01.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 08.01.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of the : No.
operative part of the judgment ?
Whether the full judgment has been : Yes
pronounced?
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
(Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, J)
1. Heard Mr. Alhajj I Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also
heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State of Assam and Mr. B. Kumar, learned Legal Aid Counsel.
2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for bail of the
accused/petitioner namely Safiqul Islam, in connection with Spl.
(POCSO) Case No. 63 of 2024 arising out of Laluk Police Station Case
No. 72 of 2024 registered under Sections 366 of Indian Penal Code,
1860, pending before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Lakhimpur,
wherein Charge sheet was submitted under Section 366 IPC read with
Page No.# 3/4
Section 4 of POCSO Act.
3. The case against the petitioner briefly is that on 10.05.2024, at
about 4:00 am, the daughter of the complainant, aged about 15 years
9 months was missing from her house. After searching for her, the
complainant side came to know that the present petitioner had
kidnapped her daughter and they were at Laluk Daily Market. After
getting the said information, both victim and petitioner were
apprehended at Laluk market.
4. The case was initially registered under Section 366 IPC and
subsequently, on the basis of further investigation, Section 4 of the
POCSO Act was also added. Subsequently, upon completion of
investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted and charges under
Section 366 IPC, read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act have been
framed and the trial has commenced in the course of which five
witnesses have already been examined including the informant as well
as the victim.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there are
major contradictions between what the victim has stated in her
evidence before the Court and what she had stated before the
Magistrate and that it would be apparent from her statements before
the Magistrate that is was a case of love relationship and the sexual
intercourse if any, was consensual in nature which is also supported by
the fact that as per the medical report, there is no evidence of recent
forceful sexual intercourse and no external injury has been detected at
the time of examination. Moreover, the age of the victim is also
Page No.# 4/4
doubtful as the prosecution has sought to prove a school certificate
which was issued in the year 2018 and admittedly; the same was
obtained for the purpose of obtaining NRC. It is therefore submitted
that the evidence regarding the age of the victim is also extremely
shaky.
6. Without entering into the merits of the evidence recorded by the
learned Trial Court, it appears to the court that there are some
contradictions in the statements of the victim before the police,
Magistrate and before the Court, which of course, it would be open for
the prosecution to explain at the subsequent stage of the trial.
However, having regard to the period of detention since 16.05.2024
and the fact that the vital witnesses have already been examined,
further detention of the petitioner is not considered necessary.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is allowed.
8. The petitioner abovenamed shall be released on bail of Rs.
50,000/- with two surties of like amount to the satisfaction of the
learned Trial Court.
9. It is further provided that the petitioner shall regularly appear at
the trial and shall not try to influence the remaining witnesses in any
manner.
10. The bail application stands allowed as above.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
