Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010165472025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2446/2025 BIPLAB MANDAL AND ANR S/O- GOSAI MANDAL. R/O- VILL.- NEWLARBHITHA, P.S.- SARTHEBARI, DIST.- BARPETA, ASSAM. 2: BHUMIDHAR SARKAR S/O- KHUSHIMOHAN SARKAR. R/O- VILL.- NEWLARBHITHA P.S.- SARTHEBARI DIST.- BARPETA ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SMT. KAMINI SARKAR W/O- ARJUN SARKAR. R/O- VILL.-ERARTARI P.O.- ERABAMUNDI P.S.- SARTHEBARI DIST.- BARPETA ASSAM PIN -781311 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S A AHMED, MS. K DAS,C S KAMTHONG,MR. F A AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MISS R A CHOUDHURY (R-2),MR E AHMED(R-2) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 10.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. S. A. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam as well as Ms. R. A. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 by the petitioners, namely, (1) Biplab Mandal And (2) Bhumidhar Sarkar who have been detained behind the bars since 05.09.2025 in connection with Special POCSO Case No. 129/2023 under Sections 376(DA) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 3. The gist of accusation in that case is that both the petitioners are facing trial before the Court of learned Special Judge (POCSO) Barpeta, under Sections 376(DA) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, for committing gang rape on the victim. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are mainly seeking bail on the grounds of prolonged incarceration, as since the date of their arrest, they have been detained behind the bars. 5. He further submits that out of 9 prosecution witnesses 8 have been examined. 6. On the other hand, he also submits that the petitioners are ready to cooperate in the trial. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. B. Sharma, has opposed the grant of bail to the present petitioners, considering Page No.# 3/4 the nature of offence involved in this case, as well as manner in which the alleged offence has been committed. 8. He also submits that in this case all the prosecution witnesses have already been examined and the Special POCSO Case No. 129/2023 was listed for examination of the accused persons, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 9. He further submits that however, the petitioners have filed an application before the Trial Court on 08.08.2025, praying for recalling the PW 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, for the purpose of their cross-examination. 10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioners are adopting delaying tactics, and it is due to the conduct of the petitioners that the trial has been prolonged. 11. He further submits that on an earlier occasion also the petitioner approached this Court seeking bail in this case. However, by order dated 08.01.2025, passed in Bail Application No.3188/2024, the prayer for their bail was rejected, mainly on the grounds that, by seeking bail before the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the petitioners had suppressed the material fact, regarding their preferring a Criminal Petition No. 1267/2023, in which, by passing an interim order, the further proceeding of Special POCSO Case No. 129/2023 was stayed. 12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has further submitted that the Coordinate Bench of this Court had also imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the petitioners for suppressing the material fact from the Court. 13. Under such circumstances, he submits that when the trial is nearing its culmination, the petitioners may not be granted bail, as there is every possibility of their trial ending in conviction. Page No.# 4/4 14. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 has submitted that the Respondent No. 2 has deposed before the Trial Court as a witness and he has nothing to say regarding granting of bail to the petitioners. 15. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, and have gone through the materials available on record. 16. Contrary to what has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, all the witnesses have already been examined, and trial is nearing its completion and it is pending, at the stage of examination of accused persons, it also appears that, at the fair end depth trial, the petitioners, have again filed an application for recalling of the prosecution witnesses. 17. Further, it also appears that after going through the testimony of the victim girl which she had deposed as PW-6 before the Trial Court that manner in which, the offence has been committed on the victim girl and the previous conduct of the petitioners in suppressing the facts before the Coordinate Bench of this Court, further, also considering the fact that the trial is nearing its completion, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage. 18. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant