Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010173822025 2025:GAU-AS:12777 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2533/2025 WAJID HUSSAIN ALIAS MUNNA S/O LATE HYDER HUSSAIN R/O BORGURI, ANIRUDDHA DEV NAGAR, P.O.,P.S. AND DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SMT. BIRUSMONI BOURI W/O SRI BRISHNU BOURI R/O NAKHRAI BASTI P.S. AND DIST. TINSUKIA ASSAM MOBILE NO. 99544-49447 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K GUPTA, MR. R S MISHRA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. U CHOUDHURY, LEGAL AID COUNSEL R-2 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 17.09.2025. Heard Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the accused; Mr. P. Page No.# 2/5 Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1; and Mr. U. Choudhury, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the informant/respondent No. 2. 2. This application, under Section 483 of the BNSS, is preferred by accused Wajid Hussain @ Munna, who has been languishing in jail hazot in connection with the POCSO Case No. 92(T)/2024, under Section 376 of the IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, arising out of Tinsukia P.S. Case No. 107/2024, pending before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge (POCSO), Tinsukia, for granting bail. 3. Notably, the said case has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by Smti 'X' (name withheld), on 07.04.2024. The essence of allegations, in the said FIR lodged against the present accused, is that on 07.04.2024, at about 09:00 a.m., he asked the informant to accompany him to his house for committing sexual intercourse with him and also assured to make payment for the same and then, she reported the matter to his wife. Thereafter, her sister, Smti 'X' (name withheld), aged 17 years, informed her that about 15 days back the accused forcefully took her to his house, from Simulguri in a vehicle and committed sexual intercourse with her for about 15 minutes and thereafter, he left her at bypass. 4. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the accused submits that- this is the second bail application, preferred by the accused and the first one, being B.A. No. 3748/2024, was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 27.01.2025. Mr. Gupta submits that the F.I.R. was lodged on 07.04.2024 and thereafter, the accused had surrendered before the learned Trial Court on 15.06.2024, and that the investigation was completed on Page No.# 3/5 27.07.2024, and the Charges have been framed against him on 22.10.2024, and till today as many as 8 witnesses have been examined, out of 12 witnesses cited in the charge sheet. Mr. Gupta further submits that the prosecution side had already examined the victim girls and they had not supported the prosecution case. Mr. Gupta also submits that the accused is ready to face the trial and he will appear before the Court regularly and will face the trial. Under the aforesaid circumstances, Mr. Gupta has contended allow this petition and he assured that the accused will abide by any condition imposed by this Court in the bail order. 5. Per-contra, Mr. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has vehemently opposed the petition. Mr. Borthakur has cited the following grounds while opposing the petition:- (i) That, though the victims girls had not supported the prosecution case in their evidence before the learned Trial Court, yet their statement before the police as well as before the Magistrate, had clearly implicated the present accused; (ii) That, out of 12 witnesses cited in the charge sheet, 8 witnesses have been examined so far and there remains 4 witnesses only to be examined and that trial will be completed soon; (iii) That, the accused is a habitual offender and another case, being Tinsukia P.S. Case No. 518/2023, is also pending against him and in the said case, the victim girl has committed suicide under mysterious circumstances; and (iv) That, the accused is an influential person and is an employee of Page No.# 4/5 the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia, and in the event of his release on bail, he may influence the witnesses which are yet to be examined. 6. Mr. U. Chaudhury, the learned Legal Aid counsel for the respondent No.2 (informant) also subscribes the submission of Mr. Borthakur, the learned Addl. P.P. He also submits that the informant and the victim girl though turned hostile, yet, their statement before Magistrate and Police speaks otherwise. Mr. Chaudhury further submits that given the nature and gravity of the charges and the stage of trial, this is certainly not a case for granting bail. 7. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the scanned copy of the record received from the learned trial court. 8. The record of the learned Trial Court reveals that charges had been framed against the accused under Sections 376(1)/354(A)(2) of the I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the P.O.C.S.O. Act. Further, it appears that till date, as many as 8 witnesses have been examined. And there remains to be examined 4 witnesses only. Further, it appears that victims had also been examined. Perusal of their evidence before the learned Trial Court reveals that they turned hostile and had not supported the prosecution case. Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel for the accused had rightly pointed this out. But, as submitted by Mr. Borthakur, in their statement before the police as well as before the Magistrate, the victims had clearly implicated the present accused. They had been declared hostile and their statements before police were brought on record. Further, it also appears that the Page No.# 5/5 accused is also involved in similar kind of offences and one case, being Tinsukia P.S. Case No. 518/2023, is also pending against him. It is also a well settled proposition of law that when bail is considered at post charges stage, the provision of Section 29 of the POCSO Act has to be taken into account. (See- State of Bihar vs. Rajballav Prasad, reported in (2017) 2 SCC 178. Moreover, the trial is at the last stage and if bail is granted at this stage, then it may also cause delay in the trial. 9. Under the above mentioned facts and circumstances, and also taking note of the provision of 29 of the P.O.C.S.O. Act, and further considering the nature and gravity of the charges, as well as antecedent of the accused, this court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the privilege of bail can be extended to the accused, accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. 10. The learned trial court is requested to proceed with the trial and to make an endeavor to dispose of the case as early as practicable, without being influenced by any of the observations made herein above, as the same has been made only to dispose of the present application. JUDGE Comparing Assistant