Bail Appln./1940/2026 of IKRAMUL ISLAM @ IKRAMUL HUSSAIN Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR on 19 August 2026

ORDER

20.08.2026 Heard Mr. S.M. Mollah, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam and Ms. T. Parashar, learned Amicus Curiae for respondent no.2.

2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for granting bail to the petitioner, namely, Ikramul Islam @ Ikramul Hussain, who was arrested in connection with Bhuragaon PS Case No. 32/2026, under Sections 64/351(2) of the BNS, 2023, R/W Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

3. TCR, as called for, has been received.

4. It reveals that the case is at the stage of framing of charges.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the alleged victim had eloped with the petitioner in the month of August 2025, and thereafter they had stayed together as husband and wife. However, the victim conceived during the month of January 2026, and she had left for her parental home. It is only thereafter that the mother of the victim had lodged an FIR which culminated in Bhuragaon PS Case No. 32/2026 under Sections 64/351(2) of the BNS, 2023, R/W Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although the petitioner and the alleged victim had been staying together as husband and wife since August 2025, the mother of the victim has lodged an FIR only on 12.05.2026, alleging an incident of 15.12.2025. He has accordingly prayed that, since the investigation has been completed, further custody of the petitioner may not be required at this stage.

7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that, as the case is presently at the stage of framing of charges, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail at this stage, particularly when the statement of the victim is yet to be recorded during the trial proceedings.

8. The learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that, from the statement made before the learned Magistrate under Section 183 of the BNSS, as well as the statement made before the police, it does not appear that the same supports the case sought to be made out in the FIR. However, the fact remains that the petitioner, who was a minor at the relevant time, is now pregnant, and there is no denial of the fact that the petitioner had impregnated the alleged victim.

9. I have gone through the scanned copy of the trial court records and have also considered the submissions made by both the parties.

10. The petitioner, who is aged about 22 years, has conceded to the fact that the alleged victim had eloped with the petitioner and had led a conjugal life with him, which fact does not seem to be rebutted by the statement of the victim. This is however a prima facie view only.

11. It is an admitted position that the victim is now with her parents, beyond the reach of the petitioner. Keeping in view the circumstances involved in the present case, although the allegations of Section 6 of the POCSO Act are involved, in my considered view, the continued detention and custody of the petitioner at this stage may not be necessary, provided it is ensured that the victim is not influenced by any act of the petitioner during the trial process, if one has so commenced.

12. Accordingly, the above-named petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.20,000 (Rupees Twenty Thousand) only with 2 sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge (POCSO), Morigaon.

13. It is further provided the petitioner shall not in any manner interact with the victim or her family members during the period of this bail. It is further provided that the petitioner shall not visit or reside in the vicinity of the alleged victim during the trial process, if any such process commences.

14. The Bail Application stands disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant