Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010247672025 2025:GAU-AS:17641 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3620/2025 SRI RAJU BARUA S/O. BABUL BARUA R/O. VILLAGE - BARAMPUR P.S. - MANGALDOI DISTRICT - DARRANG, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SMTI SANGITA DEKA WO DHRUBAJYOTI DEKA R/O. VILLAGE - BARAMPUR P.S. - MANGALDOI DISTRICT - DARRANG ASSAM PH. NO. 970719294 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. G K MEDHI, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS B CHOUDHURY, AMICUS CURIAE Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 17.12.2025 Heard Mr. G. K Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D P Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State as well as Smt. B Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent No. 2. The present application has been filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Samhita, 2023, praying for grant of regular bail to the petitioner who was arrested on 21.05.2025 in connection with Mangaldai Police Station Case No. 90/2025 registered under Section 65(1) of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The present case arises out of the FIR filed by the informant stating that about 6 pm on 25.5.2025, the complainant with her husband had gone to attend a Doul festival and left her children alone at her residence. At that time, the accused person, who is the petitioner herein, came to her house and sexually assaulted her minor daughter, aged about 12 years. The Officer-in-Charge of the Mongaldai Police Station received the complaint and registered Mongaldoi PS Case No. 90/2025 on 21.5.2025 under Section 65 (1) BNS read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act 2012 and investigation was initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 21.5.2025 and thereafter has been languishing in jail till filing of the instant bail petition. Charge sheet in this case has been submitted against the accused on 12.6.2025 and the scanned copy of the trial court records has been received. As many as six Page No.# 3/3 numbers of prosecution witnesses have been examined, cross-examined and discharged, including the informant and the victim. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the allegations made against the accused person is totally false and baseless. He has further submitted that the informant and the accused are known to each other and due to some personal enmity, the FIR had been lodged. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the statements of the prosecution witnesses are contradictory to each other and none of the witnesses has stated about the commission of rape. He accordingly prays that the petitioner, who is around 26 years of age, should be allowed to go on bail. The learned additional public prosecutor and the Amicus Curie have vehemently objected to the grant of bail. This court has gone through the documents made available along with the bail petition and has also gone through the copy of the trial court records made available. On an overall view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner at this stage. The bail petition is accordingly rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant