Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010087532025 2025:GAU-AS:12233 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1330/2025 RANJIT BORO S/O- BOLAW BORO, R/O-VILL. SORU MANIKPUR, P.S.-MUSHALPUR, DIST.- BAKSA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE LD. PP, ASSAM, 2:NAYAN BORO S/O- GOBINDA BORO. R/O-VILL- SORU MANIKPUR PS- MUSHALPUR DIST- BAKSA ASSAM-78130 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R BHUYAN, MR S ABDULLAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, ,MR D GOGOI, AMICUS CURIE (R-2) Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 09-09-2025 Heard Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State respondents. Also heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Amicus Curiae for the informant/respondent No.2. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Ranjit Boro who has been arrested in connection with Special POCSO Case No. 100/2024 pending before the Court of learned Special Judge (POCSO), Baksa, Mushalpur arising out of Mushalpur P.S. Case No. 92/2024 under Section 65(1) of the BNS, read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 3. Scanned copy of the TCR has already been received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any such offence, as alleged in the FIR. He further submitted that the petitioner got arrested in this case on 25.08.2025 and since last more than 1(one) year he is in custody. 5. Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel submitted that the Court of learned Special Judge, POCSO, Baksa, Mushalpur is lying vacant since 07.04.2025 till 04.09.2025 due to various reasons, which also delayed the disposal of the case. 6. Further, till date, 5 (five) prosecution witnesses have already been examined by the prosecution including the victim and the informant of the case. 7. He further submitted that during the enquiry stage victim’s pregnancy got aborted and there was no prayer from the I.O. for DNA profiling of the fetus of Page No.# 3/5 the victim. 8. Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner being the permanent resident of the address locality there is no chance of absconding and it is seen that as the statements of the victim as well as the informant has already been recorded, there is no question of hampering or tempering with the evidences at this stage. 9. He further raised the issue that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the present accused/petitioner in the Arrest Memo as well as in the Notice under Section 47 and 48 of the BNSS, which itself is in violation of Article 21 & 22(1) of the Constitution of India. It is the mandate of the Constitution of India that the accused/petitioner as well as his family members should be intimated the grounds of arrest. 10. However, he is still ready and willing to appear before the learned Special Judge and to contest the case accordingly by appearing on each and every date the case is fixed. 11. Mr. Das, learned Addl. PP submitted in this regard that from the statement of the victim as well as informant i.e., PW-3 it reveals that they corroborated each other and brought sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner. That apart, the victim was also offered Rs.5,00,000/-, which reveals from her deposition and hence the probability of hampering and tempering with the evidence and also the probability of his absconding cannot be denied at this stge. Accordingly, Mr. Das, raised vehement objection in allowing the petitioner to go on bail. 12. Mr. Gogoi, learned Amicus Curiae for the informant submitted that there was no mention in regard to the earlier rejection of the bail petition of the Page No.# 4/5 petitioner. However, thereafter an additional affidavit was filed by the petitioner wherein the earlier rejection order was also annexed. 13. He further submitted that it is an admitted fact that the Court of learned Special Judge was lying vacant for a considerable period and that apart the victim as well as the informant has already been examined by the prosecution and as such there may not be any chance of hampering or tempering with the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as the vital witnesses of the prosecution has already been examined. 14. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties it is seen that admittedly there was no ground of arrest mentioned in the Notice issued to the accused under Section 47 and 48 BNSS and at the same time it is also seen that the Court of learned Special Judge was lying vacant for a considerable period of time, which otherwise delayed the proceeding and at the same time it is also seen that the victim as well as the informant, who are vital witnesses of the prosecution have already been examined. 15. So, considering the entire aspect of the case vis-à-vis the length of detention already undergone by the petitioner, I find that further custodial detention of the petitioner may not be required for the purpose of trial of the case. 16. Accordingly, the accused/petitioner, namely, Ranjit Boro be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Baksa, Mushalpur. The accused/petitioner, namely, Ranjit Boro be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall appear before the Court of learned Page No.# 5/5 Special Judge (POCSO), Baksa, Mushalpur, on each and every date to be fixed by the Court; (ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Baksa, Mushalpur, without prior permission. 17. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant