Md Nijam Uddin vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 20 January, 2025

Gauhati High Court

Md Nijam Uddin vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 20 January, 2025

                                                                             Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010233042024




                                                                      undefined

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

                             Case No. : Bail Appln./3395/2024

           MD NIJAM UDDIN
           S/O MD. IDRISH ALI
           R/O VILL- NALDOBA, P.O. BAJBATOMARI
           P.S. KAMPUR, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782425.



           VERSUS

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

           2:REJIA KHATUN
           W/O ABDUL JABBAR
           PRESENT ADDRESS- R/O RONGNIHANG PATHAR

           P.S. DIPHU

           P.O. -DIST. KARBI ANGLONG
           ASSAM
           PERMANENT ADDRESS-
           BHAJAKHAITI
            P.S. MOIRABARI

           DIST. MORIGAON
           ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner : MD. M H CHOUDHURY, MR. P CHAKRABORTY,TANZIM L.
CHOUDHURY,R. BARUAH,MR. S N AHMED,MR MONZUR K CHOUDHURY

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. D GOGOI (Amicus Curiae, R-2)
                                                                        Page No.# 2/4


                                 BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

                                     ORDER

Date : 20.01.2025

Heard Mr. M.H. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M.K.
Choudhury, learned counsel for the accused. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami,
learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1 and Mr. D. Gogoi,
learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No. 2.

2. This petition, under Section 483 of the BNSS is preferred by accused,
namely, Md. Nijam Uddin, who has been languishing in jail hazot in connection
with Diphu P.S. Case No. 25/2024, under Sections 376(2)/354-C of the IPC, read
with Sections 4/12 of the POCSO Act, for grant of bail.

3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on
the basis of an FIR lodged by one Rejia Khatun on 01.05.2024. The essence of
allegation, in the FIR dated 01.05.2024, is that about six months back, Md.
Nijam Uddin and his wife came to visit the house of the informant and took her
minor daughter to their residence and sexually assaulted her and also
threatened her that if her daughter did not marry him, he would expose the
explicit photographs of her daughter which he had taken during sexual assault
of her daughter in social media.

4. Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the accused submits that the
accused has been languishing in jail hazot since 03.05.2024, and that the
prosecution side has already examined three witnesses i.e. the victim girl and
her parents, and that as the accused has been languishing in jail hazot, he could
not defend himself properly during the trial and if he is enlarged on bail, then he
would be able to defend himself during rest of the trial, and that the accused is
Page No.# 3/4

also residing at a different place from that of the victim and on such count,
there is no question of threatening her, and that he is ready to abide by any
condition imposed by this Court and therefore, it is contended to allow this
petition.

5. On the other hand, Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the petition and submits that in their evidence before the
Court, the victim girl and her parents have implicated the accused with the
offence charged which are very serious and that trial is going on and if the
accused is enlarged on bail at this stage, it will cause delay in completion of trial
and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Gogoi, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent
No. 2 submits that the offences are serious in nature. However, he submits that
in view of the examination of the victim and her parents by the learned trial
Court, if the Court considers granting him bail, then some condition may be
imposed upon him.

7. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have
carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and
also perused the scanned copy of the record received from the learned trial
Court.

8. It appears that the accused has been charged under Sections 376(2)

(n)/354-C of the IPC, read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. It also appears that
the learned trial Court has examined as many as three witnesses including the
victim girl, out of the twelve cited witnesses in the charge-sheet. Further, it
appears that the offences are indeed serious, and trial is going on and if bail is
granted to the accused on the ground that he would not be able to defend
Page No.# 4/4

himself properly from jail, in such a serious case, then it would send a wrong
signal to the society.

9. Having regards to the objection of Mr. Goswami, learned Addl. Public
Prosecutor, and also considering the nature and gravity of the offence, this
Court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the privilege of bail can be
granted to the accused at this stage and accordingly, this bail application stands
dismissed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant