Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010277332024 2025:GAU-AS:4639 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/3412/2024 PRASANTA SARKAR @ BASANTA SARKAR S/O SUREN SARKAR @ NITAI SARKAR RESIDENT OF DALIMBARI, CHAPARMUKH TOWN, RAHA DIST NAGAON, ASSAM 782425 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP ASSAM 2:BINA SARKAR W/O SRI KANCHAN SARKAR RESIDENT OF DALIMBARI PO GOSPARA PS RAHA DIST NAGAON ASSAM 78242 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. DITUL DAS, MR A TALUKDAR,MR. B R DAS,D R TALUKDAR,MS TINLUNG Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. J GHOSH(R-2),MS. U NANDA(R-2),MR. S C BISWAS (R-2),MS A DAS(R-2),MS A BORAH(R-2) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 11.04.2025 1. Heard Mr. D. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. N. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam, as well as Mr. S.C. Biswas, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. This application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Prasanta Sarkar@Basanta Sarkar, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Special (POCSO) Case No. 125/2024, arising out of Raha Police Station Case No. 65/2024 under Section 354 of the IPC, 1860 read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, 2012 pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Nagaon. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on the basis of an FIR lodged by the mother of the victim girl, inter alia, alleging that the petitioner subjected her minor to sexual assault on 04.05.2024 and the investigation was initiated and ultimately charge sheet was laid against the present petitioner under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, 2012 read with Section 354 of the IPC, 1860 before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, POCSO , Nagaon. 4. The Trial Court had issued summons to the petitioner in the said case Special (POCSO) P.S. Case No. 125/2024. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the offence involved in this case is under POCSO Act, the petitioner has got a reasonable apprehension that he may be put behind the bars by the Trial Court Page No.# 3/4 and therefore, he has approached this Court for seeking anticipatory bail. 6. In support of this submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the Case of “Musheer Alam Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.” (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 18081/2024, wherein the petitioner of that case was directed to be released by the Apex Court, even after filing of the charge sheet and even after issuance of summons to the petitioner of that case. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Pubic Prosecutor has submitted that in this case, there is no apprehension of getting arrested, as the Trial Court has only issued summons to the petitioner. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, Mr. S.C. Biswas, has also opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the present petitioner. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and have perused the materials available on record. 10. In the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Apex Court granted bail to the petitioner of the said case under the unusual circumstances which is prevalent in the State of Uttar Pradesh that arrest is affected after the charge sheet is filed, however, here no such practice is followed and neither same is prescribed by the BNSS, 2023. 11. The petitioner has been issued summons by the Trial Court and the Trial Court is the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which does not have any embargo in considering the bail application of the petitioner, if such an application is filed on his appearance before the said Court. The apprehension of getting arrested by the petitioner does not have any legal basis. The Trial Court is at liberty to consider the bail application filed by the petitioner as per law, if such an application is filed. Page No.# 4/4 12. For the reasons discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court does not find any ground in this case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 13. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Trial Court and may pray for regular bail on his appearance before the Trial Court, if so advised. 14. With the above observations, this anticipatory bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant