Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010157132025 2025:GAU-AS:12258 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1689/2025 BAPON SHARMA S/O- BINOY SHARMA R/O- RAM KRISHNA MISSION PARA, P.S- LAKHIPUR AND DIST. - GOALPARA, PIN-783129, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:RANJAN JYOTI HAJONG SON OF LATE ASARU HAJONG R/O VILL.-SUWARKONA P.O. AND P.S.-LAKHIPUR DISTRICT- GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-78312 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B M DEKA, MR. MASUM ALAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ, AMICUS CURIAE,(R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 09.09.2025 Heard Mr. B. M. Deka, learned counsel for the accused/petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional P.P. for the State respondent as well as Mr. S. Nawaz, learned amicus curiae for the respondent No.2 in the instant case. 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the accused/petitioner in connection to Lakhipur P.S. Case Page No.# 2/3 No. 95/2025 under Sections 124(2)/74/75(1)(i) BNS, 2023 read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act. 3. The facts in the instant case are that on 12.07.2025, an FIR was lodged by one Shri Ranjan Jyoti Hajong, father of the minor daughter namely, Anushmita Hajong, aged 14 years 6 months, studying at Lakhipur Higher Secondary School in Class X, alleging that she has been taking mathematics tuition with one Shri Bapon Sharma at the Office of Mahila Samiti near Lakhipur Bordoloi Hall. It was further alleged in the FIR that on 01.07.2025, at around 9 A.M. after the tuition classes were over, after sending out the students, the accused/petitioner confined his daughter, Anushmita alone in the tuition hall and thereafter, seeing no one present, touched her improperly. It was also alleged that she somehow managed to flee away to home and told about the improper act of the teacher to the informant and her mother. Accordingly, on the basis of the aforesaid FIR, a case was registered as Lakhipur P.S. Case No. 95/2025 under Sections 124(2)/74/75(1)(i) BNS, 2023 read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act. 4. The learned counsel for the accused/petitioner submits that in the instant case, though the incident occurred on 01.07.2025, the FIR was filed almost 12 days later. He submits that the accused/petitioner is no way linked in the case and in fact, the FIR was filed due to the fact that the victim girl namely, Anushmita Hajong, used to be a irregular in her classes as well as she was not performing well in her examination and due to the fact, the accused/petitioner used to scold her and advise her to study properly so that she can do well in the examination. 5. He further submits that the teacher only wants his student to do well in studies and therefore, he used to scold her on certain occasions. He submits that because of his scolding, the parents were not happy and therefore, the instant application has been filed with vengeance. Page No.# 3/3 6. Heard learned Additional P.P. for the State respondent as well as learned amicus curiae for the respondent No.2. 7. The learned Additional P.P. submits on the basis of the case diary, that the statement of the victim clearly discloses incriminating and serious allegations against the accused/petitioner. He further submits that the statements of one of the class-mates of the victim girl reveals that there is a prima facie suspicion that the accused/petitioner has committed the offence. 8. In view of the aforesaid submissions, he prays that the instant anticipatory bail application may be rejected. 9. This Court has gone through the materials on record along with the case dairy. On perusal of the case diary, it is seen that there are materials which point fingers to the accused/petitioner of his involvement in the alleged offence mentioned in the FIR. 10. Considering the materials in entirely, this Court is of the considered opinion that this instant anticipatory bail application has no merit to be allowed at this stage. 11. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application is rejected. 12. Send back the case diary forthwith. JUDGE Comparing Assistant