Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010241792025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3552/2025 SRI SRIMANTA BARUAH SON OF LATE RUHINI KANTA BARUAH, RESIDENT OF VILL- GABHARUPAR, UNDER P.S- DHEKIAJULI IN THE DISTRICT OF SONITPUR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASAAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE LD. P.P TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM 2:SMTI TARULATA BORA WIFE OF SRI KUNJO BORA RESIDENT OF VILL- MAZROWMARI UNDER P.S- DHEKIAJULI IN THE DISTRICT OF SONITPUR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G CHOUDHURY, MS. D CHOUDHURY,T DEKA,MS N KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. A AHMED, LEGAL AID COUNSEL FOR R-2 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 18.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. G Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. N Page No.# 2/4 Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam and Mr. A. Ahmed, Learned Legal Aid Council, appearing for respondent number 2. 2. By this application, the petitioner has sought for bail in connection with Dhekiajuli PS Case No. 169 of 2024, registered under section 65(1) of BNS, R/W section 6 of the POCSO Act, R/W section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, corresponding to Special POCSO Case No. 145 of 2024, pending in the court of Ld. Additional Special Judge (POCSO) Sonitpur, Tezpur. 3. The FIR dated 6-9-2024 reveals that the petitioner who had taken the victim to bring her up as his own sister is alleged to have raped her, which resulted in making the victim pregnant. It is also alleged that the petitioner along with his wife had fed the victim with some medicine for which she had experienced continuous bleeding. It is also alleged that the victim had informed the incident to her grandmother and fled from the place of the accused. 4. The police on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet and presently the trial is on, where it is informed that the victim as well as other witnesses were examined and that only the investigating officer and other official witnesses are yet to be examined. 5. The petitioner has moved an application for bail on an earlier occasion and the same was rejected while order dated 21-08-2025. However, the petitioner has moved the instant bail application again, mainly on three counts : (i) The petitioner has been inside the jail for more than a year and the long incarceration entitles the petitioner to go on bail. Page No.# 3/4 (ii) Secondly, the bail order is also prayed on the grounds of non-compliance of section 47 and 48 of the BNSS 2023. 6. Mr. G. Choudhury, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been incarcerated for one year, three months as of today as stated above as well as the non-compliance of the provisions of section 47 and 48 of BNSS, 2023. The Learned Counsel submits that although notices under 47 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023 was given to the petitioner, but the same do not contain the grounds as required under the law. 7. Ms. N. Das, the Learned APP, submits that as far as the merit of the case is concerned, the victim has given consistent statement before all the authorities, which does not require any interference. 8. Mr. A. Ahmed, Learned Legal Aid Counsel for the Respondent No. 2, also submits that the victim, as required under the law, is believable as she had given similar statement before all the authorities, before the police as well as the court. 9. I have heard the Learned Council for the Parties and have gone through the records. 10. It is noticed that although the petitioner was given notice under section 47 of the BNSS, 2023, but the necessary information which is required to be furnished to him about the case, the requirement of arresting him as well as other particulars are not furnished. Similarly, the notice under section 48 of BNSS, 2023 which requires that necessary information has to be furnished to the relatives of the accused person, also does not contain the necessary particulars as required under the law and as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Page No.# 4/4 11. In view of the same, this court finds it fit that the petitioner may be released on bail on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Ld. Additional Special Judge (POCSO) Sonitpur, Tezpur under the following conditions : (i) He will appear before the trial court on each and every date. (ii) He would not influence the witnesses who are yet to be examined. (iii) The petitioner would not delay the proceedings at the fag end and if it is done so, the parties are at liberty to file necessary application before the Court of law. 12. Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant