Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010174582025 2025:GAU-AS:13274 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2570/2025 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 REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:MS. AMINA KUMAR @ SUKH W/O MOHAN TANTI RESIDENT OF NAKHRAI TEA ESTATE P.S. AND P.O. TINSUKIA DIST. TINSUKIA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K GUPTA, MR. R S MISHRA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 25.09.2025 Heard learned counsel Mr. A. K. Gupta for the petitioner Wajid Hussain @ Page No.# 2/3 Munna who has filed this application under Section 483 of the BNS Act with prayer for bail as he has been behind bars since 15.06.2024 in connection with POSCO Case No.115 (T)/2024 (Corresponding to Tinsukia P.S. case no.518/2023) Under Section 166A/342/354A/506/509/34/376/12 OB/195A/212 of I.P.C. r/w Section 8/17/18 of the POCSO Act with added section 6 of the POCSO Act read with Section 14 of the Child Labour Prohibition and Regulation Act pending before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge –cum- Special Judge (POCSO), Tinsukia. 2. Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor is present whereas learned Amicus Curiae Ms. M. K. Brown is present for the respondent no. 2. 3. The petitioner has filed this subsequent bail application as his earlier prayer for bail was rejected by this court on the ground that trial has progressed and the prime witnesses have already been examined. 4. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that witnesses have not implicated the petitioner in the case. The allegation against the petitioner is that he committed sexual assault on two minor victims. During investigation, one victim has committed suicide. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 that the identity of the respondent no.2 is doubtful, as one victim has committed suicide, the other victim ought to have been respondent no. 2, but the person who is arrayed as respondent no.2 may not be the victim. Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that this petition is not maintainable. 6. The learned Additional P.P. has raised serious objection stating that the petitioner has been incriminated by the witnesses and this negates the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the victim has not Page No.# 3/3 implicated the petitioner. 7. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. 8. I have also scrutinized the trial court records. 9. It is true that 23 witnesses are enlisted as cited witnesses in the charge sheet. The long list of witness cannot be a criteria to grant bail to the petitioner. It is also true that the petitioner has been behind bars for more than one and a half year. 10. Considering the gravity of the offence alleged against the petitioner prolonged incarceration cannot be a ground for bail. This case is not a case which has been procrastinated by the trial court or by the prosecution. The trial court records clearly reveals that the trial is proceeding at a regular pace. 11. Earlier, there are instances of violation of bail conditions by the petitioner. 12. At this juncture, this court is hesitant to grant bail to the petitioner. So, the petition stands rejected at this stage. 13. However, if trial is procrastinated and protracted by the prosecution or by the court, the petitioner can subsequently apply for bail. 14. The petition for bail is rejected at this stage. 15. In terms of the above observation, this application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant