Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010271412024 2025:GAU-AS:2168 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3905/2024 GAUTAM NATH S/O TEJENDRA NATH R/O VILL AND P.O. RONGKUT BLOCK NO. 4, P.S. HOWRAGHAT DIST. KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM PIN-782481 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:PRANAY NATH S/O LATE PURNA KANTA NATH R/O VILL- RONGKUT BLOCK NO. 4 P.S. HOWRAGHAT DIST. KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN-78248 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A ROSHID, MS. M R DEVI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR A SHARMA (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK ORDER 03.03.2025 Heard Mr. A Roshid, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M P Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State. Also heard Mr. Ashim Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2/informant of the case. Page No.# 2/5 2. The petitioner, namely, Gautam Nath, son of Tejendra Nath, resident of Rongkut Block No. 4, P.S.-Howraghat, District-Karbi Anglong has filed this application under Section 483 BNSS, praying for his bail in Special POCSO Case No. 39/2024 arising out of Howraghat Police Station Case No. 22/2024 under Sections 376 AB IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, corresponding to G.R. No. 108/2024, in which he was arrested on 01.06.2024 and is in custody since then. 3. As per the FIR dated 30.05.2024 lodged by the respondent No. 2/informant of the case before the Uttar Barbil Outpost under the jurisdiction of Howraghat Police Station, the case is that on 26.05.2024 the accused petitioner raped the minor daughter of the informant who was 9 years old and studying in class-IV. It is alleged by the informant that accused petitioner threatened the minor victim girl of dire consequences and forcefully raped her, due to which the victim girl was bleeding from her private parts. Initially due to such threat, the minor victim girl did not inform her parents, i.e., the informant, but as she sustained bleeding injuries she was shown to Doctor on 29.05.2024 at Nagaon, before whom she told the whole incident in detail. On coming to know about the said incident, the informant informed the father of the accused petitioner about the same, who in turn told him that the matter will be compromised by paying certain amount of money. As the minor victim girl was suffering a lot because of her injuries in her private parts, the informant lodged the FIR accordingly. 4. On receipt of the FIR on 30.05.2024 by the authorities of Uttar Borbil Outpost, GD Entry was made vide No. 536 dated 30.05.2024 and it was forwarded to the Howraghat Police Station, wherein on 31.05.2024 it was registered as Howraghat P.S. Case No. 22/2024 under Sections 376 AB IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 5. Mr. Roshid, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since 01.06.2024 the accused petitioner is languishing in jail in said Howraghat P.S. Case No. 22/2024 and in the meanwhile the Court of learned Special Judge (POCSO), Karbi Anglong, Diphu had recorded the evidence of numbers of prosecution witnesses including the minor victim girl and the informant and therefore, his bail should be considered in said Special POCSO Case No. 39/2024 arising out of Howraghat P.S. Case No. 22/2024. 6. Mr. M P Goswami, learned APP, Assam has submitted that it is a heinous crime of Page No.# 3/5 committing penetrative sexual assault on a minor girl and since the matter is pending before the Court of learned Special Judge (POCSO), Karbi Anglong, Diphu at the stage of recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses, bail of the petitioner should not be considered. 7. Mr. A Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/informant of the case has submitted that the victim girl was only 9 years old and the petitioner is involved in a heinous crime. As such, he should not be considered for his bail in said Special POCSO Case No. 39/2024 arising out of Howraghat P.S. Case No. 22/2024. 8. By order dated 06.01.2025, the Court called for the copy of the relevant case records of Special POCSO Case No. 39/2024 along with the copy of the case diary of Howraghat P.S. Case No. 22/2024. 9. On perusal of the records of the case, it is seen that police have seized the original birth certificate of the minor victim girl that was issued on 06.10.2015 by the Registrar of Birth and Death, Howraghat, Karbi Anglong which indicates that the date of birth of the victim girl is 29.07.2015. As such, on the date of the incident in May, 2024 the victim girl was 9 years old. 10. Section 164 CrPC statement of the victim girl was recorded on 31.05.2024 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karbi Anglong, Diphu, in which the minor victim girl implicated the petitioner of committing penetrative sexual assault on her. Police have also seized the medical report of the victim girl as prior to filing of the FIR the informant had taken the minor victim girl to the Doctor at Nagaon. 11. The medical report of the victim girl issued by the concerned Doctor at Nagaon shows that the victim girl had multiple tears in the anal canal with redness and swallowing indicating of being sodomized multiple times and having bleeding from her rectum. 12. Police arrested the petitioner on 01.06.2024 and produced him before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Karbi Anglong and on completion of the investigation of the case submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner under Sections 376 AB IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 13. On submission of the charge-sheet, said Howraghat P.S. Case No. 22/2024 was re- Page No.# 4/5 numbered as Special POCSO Case No. 39/2024 and the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Karbi Anglong on 16.07.2024 took cognizance of the offence under Sections 376 AB IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act against the petitioner and on 16.08.2024 framed charge under Section 5 (m) of the POCSO Act punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 14. From the records of the case, it is seen that since 11.09.2024 to 03.01.2025, prosecution of the case already adduced 7 Nos. of its witnesses out of 17 named prosecution witnesses in the charge-sheet including the informant, the minor victim girl and the Doctor concerned who examined the minor victim girl and that all those prosecution witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined by the defence. 15. In her evidence before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Karbi Anglong, the minor victim girl implicated the petitioner of committing penetrative sexual assault on her who was about 9 years old at the time of the incident. 16. It is seen that the accused petitioner was of 32 years old, whereas the victim girl was 9 years old at the time of the incident. It is also seen that the petitioner happens to be the maternal uncle of the minor victim girl. 17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of X -Vs.- State of Rajasthan, reported in (2024) INSC 909 =2024 STPL 12498 SC have held that— In serious offences like rape, murder, dacioty etc., once the 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 an accused of the case.” 18. Their Lordships in said X -Vs.- State of Rajasthan further held that — “Over a period of time, we have noticed two things, i.e., (i) either bail is granted after the charge is framed and just before the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before the trial court, or (ii) bail is granted once the recording of the oral evidence of the victim is complete by looking into some discrepancies here or there in the deposition and thereby testing the credibility of the victim. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct practice that the Courts below should adopt. 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 exercises its discretion in favour of the accused and Page No.# 5/5 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 is only in the event if the trial gets unduly delayed and that too for no fault on the part of the accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on the ground that right of the accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed.” 19. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, noted above, this Court found that the right of the accused petitioner to have speedy trial has not been infringed. 20. Considering the entire aspect of the matter and for the reasons above, the bail of the petitioner, Gautam Nath, son of Tejendra Nath, in said Special POCSO Case No. 39/2024 arising out of Howraghat P.S. Case No. 22/2024 pending before the Court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Karbi Anglong, Diphu , stands rejected. 21. It is made clear that the learned Trial Court while adjudicating the said Special POCSO Case No. 39/2024 arising out of Howraghat P.S. Case No. 22/2024 shall not be influenced by any of the observations or findings, made hereinabove in this bail application. JUDGE Comparing Assistant