Bail Appln./1828/2026 of MD SORIFUL ALI Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR on 11 August 2026

ORDER

12.08.2026 Heard Mr. B. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the accused and Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. Also head Mr. S. C. Biswas, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. This application, under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, is preferred by the accused, namely, Md Soriful Ali, who has been languishing in jail hajot since 24.04.2026, in connection with Special (P) Case No. 50/2026, arising out of Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 12/2026, registered under Section 137(2) of the BNS, 2023, read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, pending before the Court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur.

3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by one Sarala Debnath (actual name withheld), on 20.04.2026. The essence of allegation in the FIR dated 20.04.2026, is that on 17.04.2026, since night, the daughter of the informant, Smt. ‘X’, (name withheld), aged 16 years 8 months, was missing from her house.

4. Mr. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the accused submits that infact, the accused and the victim have love affair and that the victim has eloped with the accused. He also submits that the family members of the victim have opposed the relation between the accused and the victim and therefore, the present case has been lodged. 4.1 Mr. Chowdhury further submits that charge in this case has also been framed and the case is pending at the stage of evidence and two witnesses have been examined so far, i.e., the victim and the informant, and that they have not been supporting the prosecution case and under such circumstances, Mr. Chowdhury has contended to allow this petition.

5. Per contra, Mr. Goswami, learned APP for the State respondent, has opposed the petition on the ground that the offences are serious in nature and the victim has already been declared as hostile by the prosecution side, and that she has also been cross-examined by the prosecution, and under such circumstances, he has contended to dismiss this petition.

6. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, also submits that as per his instruction, the informant has no objection in the event of enlarging the accused on bail, since the informant has not been supporting the prosecution case.

7. Having heard the submission of the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also gone through the scanned copy of the record of the learned Trial Court.

8. It appears that the accused is behind the bars for the last 110 days and the case is pending at the stage of evidence and two material witnesses have been examined so far. And this Court has carefully gone through the statements of the two witnesses, and finds force in the submission of Mr. Chowdhury, and also in the submission of Mr. Biswas.

9. Accordingly, taking note of the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties and also considering the period of detention of 110 days, as well as the assurance of Mr. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the accused, that the accused will appear before the learned Trial Court on each and every date and will face the trial, this Court is inclined to allow this petition.

10. It is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, the accused shall be enlarged on bail. The above privilege is however, subject to the condition that the accused will appear before the learned Trial Court, on each and every date.

11. In terms of the above, this Bail Application stands disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant