Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010105432025 2025:GAU-AS:9356 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1656/2025 SRI PANKAJ KURMI S/O- LATE SUTUN KURMI, R/O- VILLAGE- 188 NO. GRANT NAHARANI PHULBARI, P.O. AND P.S.- TITABOR, DIST.- JORHAT, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REPRESENTED BY PP, ASSAM 2:SMTI. GLORIA URANG W/O- SRI BABULAL URANG. R/O- VILLAGE- 188 NO. GRANT NAHARANI PHULBARI P.O. AND P.S.- TITABOR DIST.- JORHAT ASSAM 3:SMTI XXXXXX D/O- SRI BABULAL URANG R/O- VILLAGE- 188 NO. GRANT NAHARANI PHULBARI P.O. AND P.S.- TITABOR DIST.- JORHAT ASSAM. PIN-78563 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H P GUWALA, MS N NEWME,MR. A BORO Page No.# 2/5 Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. SURAJIT DAS, (AMICUS CURIAE, R-2, R-3) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 22.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. A. Boro, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam as well as Mr. S. Das, the learned Amicus Curiae, for the respondent No. 2. 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sri Pankaj Kurmi, who has been detained behind the bars since 05.05.2024 (for the last 442 days) in connection with Spl.(POCSO) Case No. 37/2024, under Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that the mother of the victim girl had lodged an FIR on 03.05.2024 that her minor daughter was subjected to physical relationship by the petitioner on false pretext of marrying her and as a result of which, she became pregnant. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a young boy of 21 years and at the time of alleged offence, he was 19 years of age. He further submits that there was a love affairs Page No.# 3/5 between the victim girl and the present petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is ready to take the victim as his wife and also adopt the child. 5. He also submits that the victim girl during her cross-examination has also indicated that the petitioner is ready to take both the victim as well as the child. He further submits that in this case, there are 9(nine) listed prosecution witnesses out of which 4(four) witnesses, including the prime witness like the victim girl herself as well as her mother (the first informant) have already been examined. 6. He further submits that the petitioner has been languishing behind the bars for the last 442 days and is unable to properly defend this case. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner in the record. 8. He also submits that 5(five) more witnesses are yet to be examined and if the petitioner is released at this stage, he may hamper the trial. 9. Mr. S. Das, the learned Amicus Curiae, for the respondent No. 2 has also opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that on merit the petitioner does not have any good case and there are sufficient incriminating materials against him in the record. 10. He also submits that the victim has categorically implicated the present petitioner even during her cross-examination. 11. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for Page No.# 4/5 both sides. 12. It appears that out of 9(nine) listed witnesses, 4(four) witnesses including the victim girl and her mother have already been examined. 13. It appears that 5(five) more listed witnesses, including the doctor and the Investigating Officer as well as 3(three) independent witnesses are yet to be examined. However, considering the length of detention undergone by the petitioner (442 days) as well as the fact that the prime witnesses have already been examined, this Court is of the considered opinion that further custodial detention of the petitioner may not be required for fair completion of the trial, and it would also afford him a good opportunity in defending his case. 14. In view of the above discussion, the above-named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with a suitable surety of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Jorhat with following conditions that:- i. That the petitioner shall cooperate in the trial of Spl.(POCSO) Case No. 37/2024 as and when called for; ii. That the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as and when so required by the Trial Court; iii. That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Trial Court in the trial pending against the present petitioner; 15. With the above observations, this bail application is accordingly Page No.# 5/5 disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant