Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./1820/2026 of SUJIT MONDAL Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR on 7 September 2026
GAHC010133782026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1820/2026 SUJIT MONDAL S/O.- NITAI MONDAL, R/O. VILL.- BALAPARA PART 1, P/O SAPATGRAM, P.S GOSSAIGAON, DIST. KOKRAJHAR ASSAM, PIN. 783337 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND
GAHC010133782026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./1820/2026
SUJIT MONDAL
S/O.- NITAI MONDAL, R/O. VILL.- BALAPARA PART 1, P/O SAPATGRAM, P.S
GOSSAIGAON, DIST. KOKRAJHAR ASSAM, PIN. 783337
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM, 2:SUMAN KUMAR DUTTA
S/O- LATE JITENDRA KUMAR DUTTA R/O- SAPATGRAM WARD NO. 2 P/O- SAPATGRAM P/S - SAPATGRAM DIST.- DHUBRI PIN. 783337
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A MONDAL, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR A.THAKURIA(R2),MR. D P MANDAL(R2),MR. S
BORA(R2)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 08.09.2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, for granting regular bail to the accused/ petitioner, in connection with Kokrajhar P.S. Case No. 16/2026, registered under Sections 64(1)/ 308 of the BNSS, read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
3. As per the charge sheet, the brief fact of the case is that on 26.01.2026 a case was officially registered, and an investigation into the matter was conducted. The complainant, resident of Sapatgram ward No.2, P.S.- Sapatgram, Dist.- Dhubri, Assam, submitted an Ejahar to the police station, stated that about 6 years ago, the accused/ petitioner took the victim to his house under the pretext of a love affair. Thereafter, he made her consume intoxicating substances and established physical relationship and captured photos on his mobile phone. The accused/ petitioner had also taken Rs. 3 (three) lakh during the period of 6 years. Furthermore, on 23.01.2026, during the afternoon at 1.00 P.M., the accused/petitioner again took the victim to his house from Kokrajhar Commerce College to continue the exploitation that was mentioned in the Ejahar.
4. After investigation charge sheet has been submitted and after framing of charge, 5 numbers of witnesses including the victim and the informant have already been examined.
5. As per the version of the victim who was 16 years 11 months at the time of deposition, she was in a love affair with the accused/ petitioner about 6 years back and at that time she would have been around 11 years of age and allegedly the petitioner committed forceful sexual intercourse with her during that time. But she did not complain about the same to anyone.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has hammered on the above point to submit that the present FIR is a belated one which has lodged after 6 years of the original incident.
7. It is further submitted that the allegation that the petitioner kept the victim tied up in his own house, where his other family members also resided, and that too for a period of 3 days, in course of which he allegedly committed rape upon the victim, is inherently improbable, as her parents would not have remained silent if their daughter had gone missing for 3 days. Allegations have also been made that the accused by blackmailing her by showing her nude pictures, had extracted an amount of about Rs. 3 lakhs from the victim, which she used to pay through her father's Google pay account. But the TCR does not reveal that IO has collected any evidence in that regard. It is further submitted that as per the medical report, the victim refused to undergo medical examination.
8. Without delving further into the evidence on record which may not be appropriate while considering an application for bail, I am of the view that based on the available material and having regard to the period of custody of about 7 months undergone by the petitioner and also the fact that the principal witnesses have already been examined, the petitioner may be released on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is allowed.
9. Accordingly, it is directed that the accused/ petitioner is allowed to go on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with 2 (two) sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
10. As further conditions, the accused/ petitioner shall cooperate with the remainder of the trial and shall not try to influence the remaining witnesses.
11. Bail application stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant