Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010261822024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3748/2024 WAJID HUSSAIN @ MUNNA S/O LATE HYDER HUSSAIN RESIDENT OF BORGURI, ANIRUDDHA DEV NAGAR, PO AND PS AND DIST TINSUKIA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM 2:SMTI. BIRUSMONI BOURI W/O SRI BRISHNU BOURI RESIDENT OF NAKHRAI BASTI PS AND DIST TINSUKIA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R S MISHRA, MR. A K GUPTA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. R K MAHANTA (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 27.01.2025 Heard Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the accused and Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, is preferred by accused namely, Wajid Hussain @ Munna, who has been languishing in jail hazot in connection with the P.O.C.S.O. Case No. 92(T)/2024, under Section 376 of the Page No.# 2/4 I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the P.O.C.S.O. 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. It is to be noted here that the said case has been registered on the basis of one F.I.R. lodged by Smti ‘X’ (name withheld), on 07.04.2024. The essence of allegations in the F.I.R. against the accused are that on 07.04.2024, at about 09:00 a.m., the accused 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 15 minutes and thereafter, he left her at bypass. 4. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the accused submits that the F.I.R. was lodged on 07.04.2024 and the accused had surrendered before the court on 15.06.2024 and that the investigation was completed on 27.07.2024 and the charge was framed against him on 22.10.2024 and till now no witnesses have been examined. Mr. Gupta further submits that since the charge sheet has been submitted, the question of hampering the investigation and tampering the witnesses does not arise. Mr. Gupta also submits that the accused is ready to face the trial and he will not made any attempt to influence the witnesses and therefore, it is contended to allow this petition by imposing stringent condition. 5. Per-contra, Mr. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the petition on the ground 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. Mr. Parasar further submits that no witnesses have been examined so far and without examination of the victim and the informant if bail is Page No.# 3/4 granted to the accused at this stage, there is every possibility of influencing the victim along with the informant as the accused is an employee of the office of the Deputy Commissioner and is a very influential person. Under such circumstances, Mr. Parasar has contended to dismiss the petition. 6. 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. 7. It is not in dispute that the charge has 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 no witnesses have been examined. It also appears that the accused has the antecedent of commission of such offence and one case, being Tinsukia P.S. Case No. 518/2023, is also pending against him. 8. Since no witnesses have examined so far, this court is of the view that without examination of the crucial witnesses such the victim and the informant if bail is granted to the accused at this stage, the possibility of influencing the witnesses by the accused cannot be left out. As this bail application is filed in post charged stage, this court has to take into account the provision of Section 29 of the P.O.C.S.O. Act as in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of State of Bihar vs. Rajballav Prasad, reported in (2017) 2 SCC 178, while considering the bail application at post charge stage the court has also to consider the provision of Section 29 of the P.O.C.S.O. Act. 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, this court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the privilege of bail can be extended to the accused. 10. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. Page No.# 4/4 11. However, the learned trial court is requested to expedite the trial and conclude the same as soon as practicable without granting any adjournment to either side. JUDGE Comparing Assistant