Bail Appln./2083/2026 of ABDUL ALI Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR on 17 September 2026

ORDER

Date : 18.09.2026

1. Heard Mr. M. A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as Mr. N. K. Tougchangya, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Abdul Ali, who has been detained behind the bars since 02.06.2026, in connection with Sessions Special Case No. 21/2025, arising out of Noonmati P.S. Case No. 226/2024, under Section 64 of BNS read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The petitioner is facing trial before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), in connection with Sessions Special Case No. 21/2025 and in the said case, four out of six numbers of listed prosecution witnesses have already been examined.

3. Mr. M. H. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was earlier granted bail by this Court on 25.09.2025, in Bail Application No. 2401/2025 after going through the materials available on record and after considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for both the parties. However, the said bail granted to him was cancelled by this Court on 18.05.2026, by order passed on the same day, in I.A. (Criminal) 1140/2025.

4. He submits that the reason for cancellation of bail was that apart from Bail Application No. 2401/2025, the petitioner had also filed another bail application which was registered as Bail Application No. 2029/2025 and regarding the said bail application, disclosure was not made in Bail Application No. 2401/2025. As such, this Court held that the petitioner suppressed material facts and violated the mandate of Notification No. 9 dated 03.02.2024 issued by the Registry of this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while cancelling the earlier bail granted to the petitioner, this Court had made an observation that the petitioner may move for bail before the Trial Court and said bail application shall be decided by the Trial Court on its own merit. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that accordingly the petitioner surrendered before the Trial Court on 02.06.2026 and moved a bail application before the Trial Court. However, the said application was dismissed by the Trial Court by its order dated 16.06.2026, and since then, the petitioner has been detained behind the bars.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the materials on record would reveal that there are materials to indicate that the petitioner, who is 24 years of age, and the victim, who was 16 years of age at the time of commission of offence, were in a romantic relationship and the relationship between them was consensual in nature. He further submits that, considering these aspects, this Court granted bail at the first instance. However, due to filing of a second bail application about which disclosure was not made by the petitioner in Bail Application No. 2401/2025, he had to suffer.

7. He submits that, considering the fact that the petitioner is 24 years of age only as well as the fact that his custodial detention may not be required for fair completion of trial which he is facing before the Trial Court, he may be allowed to go on bail on any condition which may be imposed by this Court. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Anurudh”, reported in “2026 INSC 47”.

8. On the other hand, Mr. K. K. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the conduct of the petitioner does not inspire confidence as he on an earlier occasion misled the Court by suppressing material facts. He further submits that though there are materials to indicate that there was a consensual relationship between the parties, however, the victim was lured into having a physical relationship by giving her a false promise of marrying her and the petitioner has now declined to marry her and as such at this stage bail may not be granted. He fairly submits that the remaining two witnesses who are yet to be examined in the trial are official witnesses.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 also opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is the neighbour of the victim girl and if at this stage, the petitioner is released, there may be a threat to the safety of the victim girl.

10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record.

11. It appears that on an earlier occasion, the petitioner was granted bail by this Court on 25.09.2025, in Bail Application No. 2401/2025 after considering all materials on record. Though, the said bail was cancelled due to the fact that the petitioner did not disclose to this Court regarding the pendency of another bail application filed by him, however, it appears that after cancellation of bail, the petitioner has surrendered before the Trial Court and since 02.06.2026, he has been detained behind the bars.

12. It is also relevant for the consideration of this bail application to note that, in the meantime, the victim girl and other independent witnesses have already been examined and only official witnesses are remaining to be examined. It also appears that though the learned counsel for the respondent has apprehended that releasing the petitioner at this stage may threaten the victim girl, however, he fails to point out any such incidents of giving threat by the petitioner during the period when he was granted bail on 25.09.2025 till he surrendered before the Court on 02.06.2026.

13. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that if sufficient conditions are imposed while granting bail to the petitioner, the concern of respondent No. 2 may be taken care of.

14. This Court, considering the stage of the trial which is pending before the Trial Court, is of considered opinion that custodial detention of the petitioner may not be necessary for fair completion of the trial pending against him. As such, the petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with one surety of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with following conditions: -

(i) That he shall co-operate in trial and shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to the victim girl or any of the witnesses who have either already deposed or yet to depose before the Trial Court, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing the truth before the Court.

15. With the above observation, this bail application is allowed.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant