Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010255272024 2025:GAU-AS:2167 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3689/2024 RANJIT BORO S/O LATE BOLAW BORO R/O VILL AND P.O. SORU MANIKPUR, P.S. MUSHALPUR, DIST. BAKSA, ASSAM, PIN-781329. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:NAYAN BORO S/O GOBINDA BORO R/O VILL AND P.O. SORU MANIKPUR P.S. MUSHALPUR DIST. BAKSA ASSAM PIN- 78132 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M KALITA, MR. N M DAS,MR. J HATIMURIA,MR. A PHUKAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ (AMICUS CURIAE, R2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK ORDER 03.03.2025 Heard Mr. M. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Page No.# 2/5 Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State. Also heard Mr. S. Nawaz, learned Amicus Curiae for the informant/respondent No. 2. 2) The petitioner, namely, Sri Ranjit Boro, son of late Bolaw Boro, resident of Soru Manikpur, Police Station-Mushalpur, District-Baksa has filed this application under section 483 BNSS, 2023 praying for his bail in Special POCSO Case No. 100/2024, arising out of Mushalpur Police Station Case No. 92/2024, registered under Section 65 (1) BNS, 2023 read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 698/2024, in which, he was arrested on 24.08.2024 and is in custody since then. 3) As per the FIR of the case dated 23.08.2024 lodged before the Mushalpur Police Station on 23.08.2024 by the informant/respondent No. 2 the case is that on 18.08.2024, the complainant/informant, after conducting the urine test of his minor sister came to know that his minor sister aged about 13 years has became pregnant. When he and his mother inquired from his minor sister, she stated that it is her neighbour cum maternal uncle who had sexual intercourse with her on about four occasions since last one and half months and threatened her of dire consequences if she revealed about the said incident to her family members. When the informant along with his other family members went to inquire about the incident from the family members of the said maternal uncle, they offered a huge amount of money and threatened them to close the issue. The informant also stated that the said incident pertaining to offering money and threatening given by the family members of the informant’s maternal uncle are recorded in his mobile. 4) Said FIR of the informant/respondent No. 2 was accordingly registered as Mushalpur P.S. Case No. 92/2024 under Section 65 (1) BNS, 2023 read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 698/2024. 5) By order dated 04.12.2024, the Court called for the records of Special POCSO Case No. 100/2024 from the concerned POCSO Court, including that of the case diary of Mushalpur P.S. Case No. 92/2024. 6) The contention of the petitioner is that since the statement of the minor victim girl has already been recorded and he is in custody since 24.08.2024, the petitioner should be considered for his bail. 7) Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam submitted that the birth Page No.# 3/5 certificate of victim girl in the case indicates that at the time of the incident, the victim girl was a minor. 8) Mr. Nawaz, learned Amicus Curiae for the informant/respondent No. 2 by placing the charge-sheet of the case stated that the minor victim girl was made pregnant and was subsequently aborted of her pregnancy. 9) Mr. Nawaz, learned Amicus Curiae for the informant/respondent No. 2 also submitted that in her statement before the learned Magistrate under Section 183 BNSS as well as in her deposition before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Mushalpur, Baksa; the victim girl implicated the petitioner of having sexual intercourse with her in spite of her objection and resistance. 10) Mr. Nawaz, learned Amicus Curiae for the informant/respondent No. 2 also pointed out that the accused petitioner is of 48 years of age whereas the victim is only 13 years old on the date of the incident. 11) On perusal of the records of the case, it is seen that after registration of the said FIR on 23.08.2024, the statement of the victim girl under Section 183 BNSS was recorded by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baksa on 24.08.2024 itself, in which, the minor victim girl implicated the petitioner of committing forceful sexual intercourse with her and of making her pregnant. 12) It is also seen that on 24.08.2024 the victim girl was medically examined at Dr. Ravi Boro Civil Hospital at Mushalpur and she was found being pregnant for a duration of 9 weeks. 13) The accused petitioner was arrested on 24.08.2024 and was produced before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Mushalpur, Baksa on 25.08.2024. 14) From the records of the case, it is seen that Police have seized the original birth certificate of the minor victim girl. As per her birth certificate issued on 10.01.2018, the date of birth of the victim girl is 27.11.2011. As such, at the time of the incident, the victim girl was less than 13 years of age. 15) After completion of the investigation, Police on 31.08.2024 submitted the charge sheet in said Mushalpur P.S. Case No. 92/2024 against the petitioner under Section 65 (1) BNS, 2023 read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and against the petitioner’s wife, namely, Kabita Boro under Section 21 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Page No.# 4/5 16) After filing of the charge sheet in said Mushalpur P.S. Case No. 92/2024, it was renumbered as Special POCSO Case No. 100/2024 before the Court of learned Special Judge (POCSO), Mushalpur, Baksa. 17) On 20.09.2024, the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Mushalpur, Baksa took cognizance of the offence under Section 65 (1) BNS, 2023 read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 against the petitioner in said Special POCSO Case No. 100/2024. 18) Further, on the prayer of the Investigating Officer of said Mushalpur P.S. Case No. 92/2024, the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Mushalpur, Baksa by order dated 23.09.2024, allowed the prosecution to obtain blood samples of the victim girl as well as of the accused petitioner for its necessary test and to send it to the FSL for necessary DNA test and report. 19) The Court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Mushalpur, Baksa in said Special POCSO Case No. 100/2024 on 26.11.2024 framed charge under Section 65 (1) BNS, 2023 read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 against the petitioner and under Section 21 of the POCSO Act, 2012 against Kabita Boro, wife of the petitioner. 20) It is seen that the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Mushalpur, Baksa has already recorded the evidence of the minor victim girl on 17.01.2025. 21) As per the charge sheet of the case, there are altogether eight prosecution witnesses and seven more prosecution witnesses, including the Doctor who examined the minor victim girl and the concerned Investigating Officer of said Mushalpur P.S. Case No. 92/2024 are yet to be recorded. 22) Considering the above, it is found that the right of the accused petitioner to have speedy trial has not been infringed. 23) Law is well settled that in heinous offences involving rape, like in the case in hand, in which, the victim is a minor; once trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court, be it the Trial Court or the High Court, should be loath in entertaining the Bail Application of the accused person. Once the trial commences, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion, which may either result in the conviction of the accused or acquittal of the accused. The moment the High Court exercise its discretion in the favour of the accused and orders release of the accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence of the victim. It Page No.# 5/5 is only in the event if the trial gets duly delayed and that too for no fault on the part of the accused, the Court may be justified in ordering the release of the accused on bail on the ground that the right of the accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed. [X Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2024) INSC 909 = 2024 STPL 12498 SC] 24) As it is already noted above that the evidence of seven witnesses are yet to be recorded, including the evidence of the concerned Investigating Officer of the Mushalpur P.S. Case No. 92/2024 and that of the concerned Medical Officer; and since the right of the petitioner of having a speedy trial has not been infringed, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner, namely, Sri Ranjit Boro, son of late Bolaw Boro is not entitled for his bail in said Special POCSO Case No. 100/2024, arising out of Mushalpur Police Station Case No. 92/2024. 25) Accordingly, this bail application of the petitioner, namely, Sri Ranjit Boro, son of late Bolaw Boro in said Special POCSO Case No. 100/2024, arising out of Mushalpur Police Station Case No. 92/2024 stands rejected. 26) The submission given by Mr. S. Nawaz, learned Amicus Curiae is appreciated. The Gauhati High Court Legal Services Committee shall pay the remuneration to Mr. S. Nawaz, learned Amicus Curiae who appeared for the informant/respondent No.2, as being appointed by the Court and assisted the Court in adjudicating this matter, on raising a bill by him. 27) It is made clear that the Court of learned Special Judge (POCSO), Mushalpur, Baksa while adjudicating the said Special POCSO Case No. 100/2024, arising out of Mushalpur Police Station Case No. 92/2024 shall not be influenced by any of the observation or finding made herein above, in this bail application. JUDGE Comparing Assistant