Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040008262025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : BA/62/2025 Aminur Hossain Son of Shri Majaruddin Miya, presently residing at Gangaler, PO Ghughumarri, PS Pundibari, Cooch Bihar District, West Bengal VERSUS The State of AP and Anr represented by the PP of AP 2:Miss XYZ Age: 0 Occupation : Daughter of Shri Sadikul Hoque address Borum Naharlagun PO and PS Naharlagun Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh and permanent resident of Village Aradul Proposal Colony Dhemaji PO PS and District Dhemaji Assam. Advocate for the Petitioner : T Gameh, M Ranka,R NAJI,B Tagia Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Legal Aid Counsel,Jaya Doji Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 28-10-2025 Heard Mr. T. Gameh, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Ms. J. Doji, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent No. 2/victim. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for grant of bail to the accused, namely, Shri Nurul Ali, in connection with POCSO Case No. 16/2024, corresponding to Itanagar WPS Case No. 45/2024, under Sections 65(2)/137(2)/351 of the BNS, 2023, read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012, who has been arrested on 06.09.2024. 3. The case set up by the prosecution is that on 03.09.2024, a written FIR was received from one Smti Nabiran Bibi in the Papu Hills Police Station to the effect that on 03.09.2024 morning when her minor daughter Ms. ‘A’ (name withheld), aged about 10 (ten) years complained about having acute pain in her private part, she was rushed to TRIHMS Naharlagun and during her treatment, the daughter disclosed that she was sexually assaulted by one unknown person on 01.09.2024 in quarry line of Borum village. She further revealed that the alleged person had given her twenty rupees and thereafter, fled away. 4. On receipt of the FIR, a case being Itanagar WPS Case No. 45/2024 under Sections 65(2) of the BNS, 2023, read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012, was registered. On completion of the investigation, a Charge-sheet was filed on 03.11.2024 and the cognizance was taken on 07.11.2024. 5. The learned Trial Court has framed the charges against the accused on 28.11.2024 under Sections 65(2)/137(2)/351 of the BNS, 2023, read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012, which is pending trial before the learned Special Jude (POCSO), Page No.# 3/6 Yupia. 6. Altogether 15 (fifteen) prosecution witnesses are to be examined out of which only 2(two) witnesses i.e. informant and the victim, have been examined. 7. Mr. Gameh, learned counsel for the applicant submits that no custodial interrogation is required in view of the fact that all the material evidences including the medical reports, statement of the witnesses and seizure memo have already been collected and finally calumniated into filing of Charge-sheet against the accused. Therefore, continued incarceration of the accused serves no investigative purpose. He submits that the accused was arrested on 06.09.2024 and it has been more than a year, the accused is languishing in the jail. 8. He submits that as per Section 35 of the POCSO Act, 2012, the Court has to complete the Trial within a period of 1 (one) year from the date of taking cognizance of the offence. Since, the trial has not been completed within a period of 1 (one) year as mandated under the law, the accused is entitled to be released on bail. He submits that as there are as many as 15 (fifteen) witnesses, out of which only 2 (two) witnesses that too, the informant and the victim, have only been examined, there is likelihood of taking long time to conclude the trial. 9. Mr. Gameh, learned counsel submits that the so called confession of the accused under Section 180 of the BNSS, 2023, was made under custody without legal aid, which raises serious question as to its voluntariness and admissibility. Moreover, the Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted after a lapse of over a month of the incident, which has less evidentiary value and creates a high possibility of suggestive identification. He submits that the accused has no criminal antecedents and he is a young man, aged about 24 (twenty four) years and hails from a poor family, who is working as a scrap collector in the State of Arunachal Pradesh and is originally rooted in the State of Assam, having deep ties to the community and is ready to undertake to fully cooperate in the trial proceedings. Therefore, he submits that the accused may Page No.# 4/6 be released on bail, pending trial of the case. 10. Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Ms. J. Doji, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent No. 2, have submitted that the deposition of the informant and the victim prima facie indicates the commission of offence by the accused, which is serious in nature as the victim is only aged about 10 (ten) years. It is submitted that since the trial has started, and is on its right pace, the trial would be concluded within the period as stipulated under the law. Since, the trial has already commenced, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage. 11. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the Trial Court Record (TCR). 12. The charges against the accused has been framed on 28.11.2024 after taking cognizance of the offence on 07.11.2024 and the charges against the accused is serious in nature involving the offence under POCSO Act, 2012. 13. It is seen that the trial has already commenced, whereby, the informant and the victim have been examined by the Court. It is stated at the Bar that the trial is going on by fixing the case every month, which appears to be in its right pace. Thus, it would not be correct to say that the trial would get unduly delayed. 14. The perusal of the record prima facie reflects materials against the accused. The deposition of the informant and the victim prima facie indicates the commission of such a serious offence against a 10 (ten) year old child by the accused person. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of X vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539 has held that ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity. etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining it’s witnesses, the Court should loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused. It has also observed that over a period of time, two things are noticed, i.e. (i) either the bail is granted after charge is framed and just before the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before the trial or (ii) bail is granted once the Page No.# 5/6 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. 16. Having noticed above, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the aforesaid is not a correct practice that the Court should adopt. Once the trial commences, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion, which may either results in conviction of the accused or acquittal of the accused. The moment the High Court exercise its jurisdiction in 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 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 the right of the accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed. 17. In the case at hand, although there are 15 (fifteen) prosecution witnesses, the informant and the victim have already been examined so far and the trial is going on by fixing the case every month, therefore, the trial appears to be on its right pace and as such, cannot be said that the trial would be unduly delayed. Coupled with the above, the offence alleged is a serious offence like rape and under the POCSO Act and the deposition of the informant and the victim appears to be clear and consistent that the accused person had subjected the victim girl to rape. 18. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case hereinabove, since the trial has already commenced, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion, which may either result in conviction of the accused or acquittal of the accused and in a serious offence like the present case, once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the application for bail cannot be entertained. 19. Having considered above, this Court is not inclined to admit the accused person, namely, Shri Nurul Ali, to bail. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected. Page No.# 6/6 However, rejection of this bail application shall not be a bar to approach the Special Judge (POCSO) for bail on the ground other than the grounds considered hereinabove. 20. Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant