Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010267422024 2025:GAU-AS:4330 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3877/2024 SRI SAWAN NAYAK S/O LATE GUMAN SINGH NAYAK R/O KHARIKATIA GRANT JUNGLE LINE, P.S. TITABAR DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SUMITA NAYAK W/O SUMAN NAYAK R/O VILL- KHARIKATIA JUNGLE LINE P.S. TITABAR DIST. JORHAT ASSAM PIN-78563 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R SEKHAR, MR U S BORGOHAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MRS. A GAYAN (LEGAL AID COUNSEL FOR R-2) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 08.04.2025 1. Heard Mr. U.S. Borgohain, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam, as well as Mrs. A. Gayan, the learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2. 2. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sri Sawan Nayak, who has been detained behind the bars since 20.11.2023 (for the last 506 days) in connection with Special (POCSO) Case No. 07/2024, pending before the Court of the learned Special Judge, Jorhat. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in this case, the petitioner is facing trial under Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 before the Court of the learned Special Judge, Jorhat and he has been languishing behind the bars for the last 506 days. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that out of 6(six) listed prosecution witnesses, 3(three) have already been examined and those, who have been examined include, the victim girl as well as the informant as well as the doctor. 5. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to co-operate in the trial. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that while the petitioner moved a bail application before the Trial Court, the informant had Page No.# 3/4 submitted no objection regarding the grant of bail to the present petitioner, however, his application was rejected at that time. He further submits that as the petitioner is ready to co-operate in the trial, his custodial detention may not be necessary. Hence, he prays for allowing the petitioner to go on bail. 7. On the other hand, the the learned Legal Aid Counsel fairly submits that it is apparent from the order dated 04.10.2024, passed in Special Case No. 07/2024, that the informant raised no objection regarding the grant of the bail to the present petitioner. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the materials available on record, including the scanned copy of the records of Special (POCSO) Case No. 07/2024. 9. As in this case, the informant as well as the victim has already been examined, and it appears that the informant has no objection if the petitioner is allowed to go on bail. Further, considering the period of detention, already undergone by the petitioner (506 days), if he co-operates in the trial, his custodial detention may not be necessary for fair completion of the trial of the Special (POCSO) Case No. 07/2024. 10. In view of the above, the above-named petitioner is hereby allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with a suitable surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Jorhat with following conditions:- (i) the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial; and (ii) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to the informant or to any other persons who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Page No.# 4/4 Investigating Officer or to any Court. 11. With the above observations, this bail application is hereby disposed of. 12. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant