Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010165452025 2025:GAU-AS:11046 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2448/2025 SRI GAJENDRA RAJ AND ANR S/O- LATE RAMPRIT MAHATA. R/O- SAPUN NAGAR, P.S.- SIVASAGAR, DIST.- SIVASAGAR, ASSAM. PERMANENT ADDRESS - VILL.- GRAMPUR TILAK, P.S.- JANKI NAGAR, DIST.- PURNIA (BIHAR). 2: SRI RAJENDRA THAKUR S/O- LATE MAHABIR THAKUR. R/O- SAPUN NAGAR RENTED HOUSE OF RATUL BORAH P.S.AND DIST.- SIVASAGAR ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SRI DIGANTA DUTTA S/O- SRI PURNA DUTTA. R/O- SAPUN NAGAR RENTED HOUSE OF RATUL BORAH P.S.- SIVASAGAR DIST.- SIVASAGAR ASSAM PIN - 785640 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S A AHMED, MS. K DAS,MR. F A AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR E AHMED (R-2) Page No.# 2/2 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER 20.08.2025 Heard Mr S A Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr K Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. Also heard Ms R A Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2. 2. This is the second bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, filed by the petitioners, 1) Sri Gajendra Raj and 2) Sri Rajendra Thakur, in respect of Special (POCSO) Case No. 44/2024, pending in the Court of Special Judge (POCSO) Sivasagar. 3. I have gone through the scanned copy of the depositions of the witnesses recorded in the trial Court. 4. Mr Ahmed has submitted that he has nothing to say about the merit of the case. He has submitted that his only plea is that the petitioners have already spent more than 1 (one) year in judicial custody. Mr Ahmed has submitted that the period of detention undergone by them, deserves to be taken as a ground for releasing them on bail. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. This is a case involved in sexual harassment of an 11 (eleven) years old minor girl. 7. I have gone through the evidence of the witnesses, who are already examined. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioners do not deserve to be released on bail. Therefore, the present bail application is rejected at this stage, and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant