Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010151422025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1613/2025 SRI JITEN SAIKIA SON OF PADMADHAR SAIKIA RESIDENT OF VILL- ULTAJAN P.S. BOGIJAN DIST. GOLAGHAT, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N SARKAR, MS. B DEVI,MR BHUBAN SHARMA,HEMANTA DEKA,S BORGOHAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Linked Case : I.A.(Crl.)/769/2025 JITEN SAIKIA S/O PADMADHAR SAIKIA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ULTAJAN PS BOGIJAN DIST GOLAGHAT ASSAM Page No.# 2/6 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY PP ASSAM 2:SRI PAPU GOWALA S/O LATE JUGESHWAR GUWALA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE 1 NO. ULTAJAN GAON PO ULTAJAN DIST GOLAGHAT ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. N SARKAR Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 29.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. S. Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarmah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, 1. Sri Jiten Saikia, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Bogijan P.S Case No.20/2025 under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012, R/W Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. 3. The gist of the accusation in this case is that on 09.06.2025, the father of the victim girl had lodged an FIR, inter alia, alleging that on 31.05.2025, after the school hours, the present petitioner who is the Headmaster of Ultajan Aadarsha Uccha Page No.# 3/6 Madhyamik Vidyalaya at Ultajan village came to the house of the informant and on pretext of teaching her mathematics touched her private parts and attempted to commit a heinous act with her. When the victim shouted, the petitioner gagged her mouth and threatened her that if she discloses the said incident to anyone, he would ruin her life. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the accusation leveled against the petitioner in the FIR are not true and he has been falsely implicated in this case. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged incident occurred on 31.05.2025, however, the FIR was lodged on 10.06.2025 and no reason for delay in lodging FIR has been stated in the FIR. 6. He further submits that in this respect, a public meeting was organized on 12.06.2025 by various social organization and student organization in the premises of Aadarsha High School, Ultajan. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the said meeting in resolution no.2, it was adopted that there was an indication that many people belief that due to pressurization of some mischievous element, the guardian of the student had filed false allegation against the Headmaster i.e. the present petitioner. 8. He also submits that in resolution no.3 adopted by the said meeting, there was also an indication that the informant i.e. the father of the victim was instigated by one Bijmol Gowala after he Page No.# 4/6 failed to extract Rs.30 Lakhs from the present petitioner for not pursuing with the said case. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the Headmaster of High School and he is also drawing and disbursement officer and as due to fear of getting arrested, he is not in a position attain to his duties. He is not able to prepare salary bills of other teachers which would cause difficulty in disbursing salary to 17 other teachers of the schools. 10. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage. He has raised a preliminary objection also that the petitioner has not complied with the directions of this Court. He submits that the petitioner did not make the informant a party in this anticipatory bail application. However, when this Court directed the petitioner to take steps for issuance of notice on the informant within 3 days, same was not done. He, therefore submits the application for anticipatory bail is liable to be dismissed on that ground only. 11. He has also produced the case diary of Bogijan P.S Case No.20/2025 and has submitted that the victim girl has been examined u/s 183 of BNSS and in her statements recorded u/s 183 of BNSS, she has implicated the petitioner with the offence alleged in the FIR. 12. He also submits that 2 of the students of the school of which the petitioner is the Headmaster have also disposed against him. Page No.# 5/6 Apart from the 2 students, 1 teacher has also implicated the petitioner with the offence alleged in the FIR. 13. He submits that at this stage, if the petitioner is granted bail, it would hamper the progress in the investigation. 14. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the case diary of Bogijan P.S Case No.20/2025. 15. Apparently, it appears that in spite of specific directions by this Court on 19.07.2025 to the petitioner to take steps for issuance of notice on the informant within 3 days of the said order returnable on 25.07.2025, no such steps was taken instead the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced an acknowledgment furnish to the petitioner by the Registry of this Court indicating the date on which the petitioner took steps for issuance of notice. 16. It appears that the said steps was taken on 28.07.2025 i.e. yesterday only and therefore, it is not expected that the said notice will reach the informant so as to facilitated her participation in the present proceedings. 17. Apart from the aforesaid facts after going through the case diary, it appears that the victim girl and the witnesses who happens to be the students of the school in which the petitioner is the Headmaster have specifically instigated the petitioner of having complicity in the offence alleged in the FIR. 18. This Court in view of the offence involved in this case and Page No.# 6/6 incriminating materials available in the case diary against the present petitioner is not inclined to grant the benefit of a favourable order u/s 482 of BNSS, 2023 to the petitioner at this stage. 19. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is therefore rejected. 20. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant