Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 22 August, 2025

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 22 August, 2025

                                                                            Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010148962025




                                                                  2025:GAU-AS:11272

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                               Case No. : Bail Appln./2184/2025

            SUNIL KUMAR SAHANI
            S/O RAMDEV SAHANI
            PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILL- GRAM FAJILA, P.O. TARSARAI MURIYA
            P.S. MURIYA, DIST. DARBHANGA, BIHAR-847115.



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
            REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM

            2:SRI ARVIND KUMAR SAHANI
             SON OF UMESH SAHANI
            R/O C/OBIJAN DAS
             BHOGDOIMUKH
             SUWANIGAON
             NEAR BHOGDOI BRIDGE
             P.S.JORHAT
             DIST.JORHAT
            ASSAM
            PH. NO. 60020-50128

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR B P BORAH, MR H MAZUMDER

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. P DAS, AMICUS CURIAE FOR R-2
                                                                      Page No.# 2/6

                               BEFORE
                 HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN

                                    ORDER

22.08.2025

1. Heard Mr. H. Mazumder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

Also heard Ms. N. Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State

and Ms. P. Das, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent No. 2.

2. By this application the petitioner has prayed for bail in connection

with Special Case No. 16/2024 pending in the learned Court of Special Judge,

Jorhat arising out of Jorhat P.S. Case No. 38/20204 registered under Section 376

AB of the IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

3. The FIR dated 04.02.2024 lodged by the father of the victim reveals

that the petitioner who was kept as a domestic help had taken his daughter i.e.

the victim who was aged 6 years of age along with his son in the pretext of

buying them some chips and that since they did not return for long, the

informant and others went in search of them and that in the evening they were

found in a paddy field and were brought to the house. The informant further

stated that on finding the clothes of the victim wet, the owner of their rented

house while undressing the victim noticed blood in her private parts and

informed the informant. It is also stated that when the victim was asked the

victim stated that the petitioner had removed her clothes and forcibly raped her
Page No.# 3/6

as a result of which blood came out of her private parts and that the petitioner

had also slapped her and her brother. On receipt of the said ejahar, the police

registered the case under the aforesaid sections. On completion of the

investigation, the police submitted charge sheet on 25.03.2024 against the

petitioner under Section 376 AB read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

4. Mr. H. Mazumder appearing for the petitioner submits that after the

submission of the charge sheet, the trial started. However, only one witness was

examined on 21.08.2024 out of seven witnesses who were arrayed in the

charge sheet. He also submits that after the examination of the PW-1, number

of times summons were issued to other witnesses including the victim but none

had appeared till date i.e. from August 2024. He placed a judgment of the

Hon’ble Bombay High Court passed in Digambar Uddhav Supekar vs State of

Maharashtra delivered in Bail Application No. 3284 of 2024 by which on the

length detention and the delay in the trial, the petitioner was enlarged on bail

and also by taking into consideration the young age of the petitioner. He also

submitted on the merits of the case saying that there are discrepancies in the

statement of the victim and other witnesses. He has also placed the medical

report of the victim wherein the doctor had opined that no signs of sexual

intercourse was found neither any signs of penetrating of penis into the vagina

was found and also no injuries was found on her body and the said examination
Page No.# 4/6

was done on the very next day of the incident i.e. on 03.02.2024 and as such,

he prays for bail.

5. On the other hand, Ms. N. Das submits that the victim was of a very

tender age i.e. 6 (six) years and such offence against is very serious in nature.

She has placed the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the

BNSS wherein she stated that she was taken by the petitioner to a jungle like

area and the petitioner removed her clothes and as such, she prays that no bail

may be granted to the petitioner.

6. Ms. P. Das appearing for respondent No. 2 submits that it is clearly

written in the FIR that the blood came out from the private parts of the victim

and that the victim was slapped by the petitioner and she also submits that

releasing the petitioner on bail would result in tampering of the evidence and

influencing the victim who is a very young and as such, she prays that no bail

may be granted to the petitioner.

7. Heard the counsels and perused the records.

8. It is reflected in the FIR that the petitioner had taken out the victim

along with her brother from their house and that on searching they were found

in a paddy field and when the victim was found with bleeding from her private

parts, the victim was asked and the victim said that the petitioner had removed

her clothes and raped her as a result of which blood came out from her private
Page No.# 5/6

parts.

9. It is seen that the said FIR was lodged by the father of the victim.

The father of the victim was examined by the Trial Court as PW-1 and in his

statement before the Trial Court, he did not say about the fact revealed by the

victim as stated in the FIR. He stated before the Trial Court that when the house

owner removed the clothes of her daughter, she found the victim bleeding from

her private parts. Further it is seen from the statement given by the victim

before the Magistrate where she stated she was taken to the jungle like area by

the petitioner and that the petitioner had removed her clothes but she did not

say about any sexual assault being committed by the petitioner. Further the

medical evidence also does not show any injuries on any part of the body of the

victim much less any sexual assault. Apart from the same, it is also noticed that

the trial of the case has taken long. PW-1 was examined on 21.08.2024 and

after that although repeated summons were issued to the witnesses but none of

them had appeared before the Trial Court and the trial could not proceed and

the petitioner has been inside the jail since one and half years. In view of the

same, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner may be released on bail on

furnishing of a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with 2 (two)

local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge POCSO,

Jorhat under the following conditions:-

Page No.# 6/6

1) The petitioner will not go near the victim or any of her family

members at any point of time.

2) The petitioner will appear before the Trial Court without fail

as and when called for.

3) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence or influence

the witnesses whoever is connected with the case.

4) The petitioner will not leave the jurisdiction of the Special

Judge, Jorhat without the permission of the said Court.

5) If any violation of the conditions are seen, the Special Judge,

Jorhat would be at liberty to cancel the bail forthwith.

10. The petition is disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant