Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010143972026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1963/2026 SUSHANTA TALUKDAR S/O-GAUTAM TALUKDAR, R/O-VILLAGE- SALMARA, P.S- BAIHATA CHARIALI, DISTRICT-KAMRUP, ASSAM. VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:RIJUMONI DEKA W/O- BIPUL DEKA R/O- VILLAGE- BORHAJARA P.S.- BAIHATA CHARIALI DIST.- KAMRUP R ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS N BARUAH, MR P DAS,MR. D SARMA,MR K J PATHAK Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. B SARMA, LEGAL AID COUNSEL R2 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 31.07.2026. Heard Mr. P. Das, learned counsel for the accused. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. P.P. for the state respondent and Ms. Bijita Sharma, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No.2. Page No.# 2/4 2. This application, under Section 483 of the BNSS 2023, is preferred by accused Sushanta Talukdar, who has been languishing in jail hazoot since 07.06.2026, in connection with Baihata Chariali P.S. Case No-121/2026, U/S-351(3)/ 75(2)/ 95 of BNS, read with section 66 E/ 67 b of I. T. Act, and read with Section 10 of POCSO ACT. 3. It is to be noted here that above noted case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on 06.06.2026, by one Sharmila Deka (actual name withheld), mother of the victim. 4. The essence of allegation in the FIR is that on 06.06.2026, one Jyotirmoy Deka, and Sushanta Talukdar, both are from Baihata Chariali, have mentally harassed the minor daughter of the informant and they have also forcefully convinced her to record a naked video and shared it on social media, when she was 17 years old. 5. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused and the victim girl were having good friendly relation and the accused got that particular video in his social media platform and the victim being his good friend, and out of surprise in order to ascertain whether the video is A.I. generated or genuine one, had sent the video to the mobile phone of the victim girl only on good faith and bona-fide belief that she will authenticate the same and would file a complaint against the culprits, but the informant without knowing the truth lodged an FIR against the accused. 5.1. Mr. 5.1. Mr. Das, referring to Section 7 of the POCSO Act, i.e. definition of ‘sexual assault’ and also referring to the allegation in the FIR, submits that no offence under Section 10 of the said Act appears to be made out against the accused. 5.2. Mr. Das also submits that the accused is innocent and he is a meritorious student and no way involve with the alleged offence and he assures that:- (i) He shall not hamper and temper with evidence of the case if any. (ii) He shall not leave India without prior permissions of the Court. (iii) He shall extend full cooperation in the investigation of the case. 5.3. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances Mr. Das has contended to allow this Page No.# 3/4 petition and that he is ready to abide by any condition imposed by this Court. 6. Per contra, Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. P.P. for the state respondent has vehemently opposed this petition. Producing the case diary before this Court Mr. Borthakur submits that the I.O. has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the accused justifying his further detention in jail hazoot and therefore, he has contended to dismiss this petition. 7. Ms. Bijita Sharma, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No.2 also opposed the petition. She submits that the allegations are serious and it involves the future and dignity of the victim and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the same. 8. 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 gone through the relevant provisions of law and also gone through the case diary produced before this Court by the learned Addl. P.P., with his assistance. 9. A careful perusal of the case diary indicates that the I.O. has collected sufficient incriminating materials in support of the allegations made against the accused in the FIR. It is however, a fact that going by the definition of ‘sexual assault’ in Section 7 of the POCSO Act and also going through the FIR and materials collected in the case diary, it cannot be said that the offence under Section 10 of the Act is made out. Mr. Das has rightly pointed it out. But, it cannot be said that the offence of ‘sexual harassment’ as defined in Section 11 of the Act and is punishable under Section 12 of the Act is not made out. 10. However, it appears that accused was arrested on 07.06.2026, in connection with Baihata Chariali P.S. Case No-121/2026, U/S-351(3)/ 75(2)/ 95 of BNS, read with section 66 E/ 67 b of I.T. Act and read with Section 10 of POCSO ACT, and since then he has been languishing in jail hazoot for last 55 days. Further, it appears from the case diary that material part of investigation is almost over. Besides, the accused is also a student pursuing his studies. Page No.# 4/4 11. Under the given factual background, further detention of the accused is found to be not warranted in the interest of investigation. Accordingly, considering the period of detention, the progress of investigation, and also considering the fact that the accused has been pursuing his studies, this Court is inclined to allow this petition. 12. It is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only, each, with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Rangia, accused who has been languishing in jail hazoot in Baihata Chariali P.S. Case No-121/2026, U/S-351(3)/ 75(2)/ 95 of BNS, read with section 66 E/ 67 b of I.T. Act and read with Section 10 of POCSO ACT, since 07.06.2026, accused Sushanta Talukdar shall be enlarged on bail. 13. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. The Case File be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant