Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010098882025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1509/2025 SHRI SOM PRASAD SARMAH S/O- LATE NARAD MUNI SARMAH. R/O- VILL.- GAMIRI GODHARIYA BASTI, P.O- GAMIRI, PIN-784172. P.S- HELEM, DIST.- BISWANATH., ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY PP, ASSAM 2:KALPANA DEVI R/O- VILL.- GAMIRI GODHARIYA BASTI P.O- GAMIRI PIN-784172. P.S- HELEM DIST.- BISWANATH. ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P BORDOLOI, MS M NIROLA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. B SARMA (AS LEGAL-AID-COUNSEL FOR R- 2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 04-06-2025 Page No.# 2/4 Heard Mr. P. Bordoloi, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S.H. Borah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State respondent no. 1 and Ms. B. Sarma, the learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for respondent no. 2. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 24.02.2025 in connection with Special (POCSO) Case No. 18/2025 u/s 65(2) of the BNS, 2023 read with section 4/10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 pending before the Court of the learned Special Judge, Biswanath, Biswanath Chariali. 3. Scanned copy of the case record has already been received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Bordoloi that the present accused/petitioner is innocent and some false and concocted allegation has been brought against him. He is a 72 year old person and he is behind the bars since 102 days who was arrested in connection with this case on 24.02.2025. Charge-sheet has already been filed and from the charge-sheet it is seen that there are 27 prosecution witnesses to be examined by the prosecution. The accused is of 72 year old person and he is a retired Headmaster and considering these aspects also this petition may be considered. He further submitted that as the case has already been charge-sheeted after completion of the investigating and charge is also framed, his further custodial detention may not be required. Further it is submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to contest the case by appearing each and every date before the learned Trial Court below, if he is granted the privilege of bail. Page No.# 3/4 5. Mr. Bordoloi further submitted that one bail petition was earlier moved before this Court but during the pendency of the said application the charge- sheet was filed and for which a direction was given to the present petitioner to appear before the learned Trial Court below with a prayer for regular bail. In pursuant to said direction the petitioner also filed an application for bail on 06.05.2025 but his prayer was rejected by the learned Trial Court. 6. Further he submitted that no grounds of arrest has been mentioned in the Arrest Memo and the grounds of arrest which has been mentioned in the Notices u/s 47 & 48 BNSS are also not proper. Considering this aspect also the bail may be granted to the present petitioner. 7. Ms. S.H. Borah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that admittedly the victim is 8 year old minor girl and the accused/petitioner is a 72 year old person. She further submitted that the victim brought sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioner in her statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS. Further she submitted that one of her friends who also arrived at the place of occurrence also corroborated the statement of the victim though she did not see the occurrence which took place inside the four walls. She further submitted that if the present accused/petitioner is released on bail at this stage, there is every probability of hampering or tampering the witnesses of this case. Ms. Borah submitted that the grounds of arrest may not be available in the Arrest Memo but Notices which have been served to the present petitioner u/s 47 & 48 BNSS, there are sufficient compliance and the grounds of arrest is specifically mentioned in notices u/s 47 & 48 BNSS. Ms. Borah accordingly raised objection in enlarging the accused/petitioner on bail at this stage. 8. Ms. Sharma, the Legal Aid Counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 also Page No.# 4/4 submitted that the 72 year old person committed such a heinous offence which already conveyed a bad message to the society. Further she submitted that there may not be any injury mark on the medical report but from the statement of the victim it is seen that the petitioner attempted to commit rape on the minor girl and hence there may not be any injury mark. Accordingly she submitted that this is not at all a fit case to allow the petitioner to go on bail at this stage. 9. Considering the entire submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the case records and the statements made by the victim and the other witness u/s 183 BNSS wherefrom it is seen that the victim girl who is only 8 year of age has brought sufficient incriminating material against the present petitioner. Though the charge has already been framed in the present case, the evidence is yet to be recorded and the probability of hampering or tampering with the evidence of the vital witnesses, especially the minor victim also cannot be denied at this stage. Further it is seen that the grounds of arrest may not be mentioned in the Arrest Memo but there are sufficient compliance of notices u/s 47 & 48 BNSS issued to the present petitioner as well as to his family members. 10. Considering entire circumstances of this case, I do not find it a fit case to extent the privilege of bail to the present petitioner at this stage and hence the same stands rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant