Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010190112025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2774/2025 KACHE TERANGPI D/O PHANIRAM TERANG R/O VILL- LOKSO TOKBI GAON, P.O. PARAKHOWA, P.S. DOKMOKA DIST. KARBIA ANGLONG, ASSAM (REPRESENTING CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH LAW) VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR T KALITA, J DASGUPTA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 11.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. T. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, has been filed by the petitioner seeking bail to Mirlong Kramsa, who is the child in conflict with law, who has been apprehended in connection with Dokmoka P.S. Case No. 19/2025 under Sections 126(2)/ 117(2)/ 118(2)/ 189(2)/ 103(2)/ 3(5) of BNS read with Sections 7/5 of the Page No.# 2/3 Assam Witch Hunting (Prohibition and Protection) Act, 2015. 3. The petitioner in this case is the mother of the child who is in conflict with law and the age of the child who is in conflict law is stated to be 17 years. 4. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 03.07.2025, one Kave Ingtipi, had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Dokmoka Police Station, inter alia, alleging that the son of the petitioner was suffering from typhoid and it was suspected by the local villagers that the husband of the informant has done some black magic on him. Accordingly, the accused persons named in the FIR had assaulted the husband of the informant and lynched him to death. 5. The learned counsel has submitted that the son of the petitioner has not participated in lynching of the husband of the informant, however, the learned Principal Magistrate, JJB, Diphu, Karbi Anglong by order dated 03.07.2025 had sent the son of the petitioner to the observation home, Jorhat on the ground that proper counselling is required to be given to the son of the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the son of the petitioner did not participate in the commission of alleged offence, he should have been granted bail by the Principal Magistrate, JJB instead of sending him to the observation home at Jorhat. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for allowing son of the petitioner to go on bail. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary of Dokmoka P.S. Case No. 19/2025 and has submitted that there is no material on record to suggest that the child who is in conflict with law, namely, Mirlong Kramsa had assaulted the husband of the informant or in any manner participated in the offence alleged in the FIR. He submits that though the reason for assault shown in the FIR is that the child in conflict with law is alleged to be subjected Page No.# 3/3 to black magic which caused typhoid to him. However, the child in conflict with law has himself not participated in the alleged assault. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both sides and have produced the case diary. 9. It appears that nothing is there in the case diary to indicate that the child who is in conflict with law, namely, Mirlong Kramsa had participated in any manner in assaulting the husband of the informant. 10. Under such circumstances, the Juvenile Justice Board ought to have released him on bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. 11. Under above circumstances, the son of the petitioner, namely, Mirlong Kramsa is directed to be released on bail of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Diphu, with the following conditions:- (i) That the son of the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts of the case before the Investigating Officer; (ii) That the son of the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation; 12. This bail application is accordingly disposed of. 13. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant