Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010155872025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2392/2025 RAJANI DAIMARY SON OF LATE SANG DAIMARY R/O JENGORBORI P.O. LAHARIGHAT, P.S. LAHORIGHAT, DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SMTI KRISHNA BORDOLOI W/O SRI JIBON BORDOLOI R/O JENGORBORI P.O.LAHORIGHAT DIST. MORIGAON ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P J SAIKIA, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ (AMICUS CURIAE, R2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER 14.11.2025 Heard Mr. P. J. Saikia, learned counsel for the accused/applicant. Page No.# 2/4 Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State and Mr. S. Nawaz, learned Amicus Curiae representing the respondent No.2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the accused/applicant, viz., Sri Rajani Daimari in connection with Laharighat P.S. Case No.888/2021 corresponding to Special Case No.55/2022 registered under Sections 376AB/(2)(N) of the IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The allegation against the accused/applicant as transpired from the F.I.R. dated 20.12.2021 is that on 19.12.2021 at about 3.00 p.m. in the afternoon, taking advantage of the informant’s absence in the house, her minor daughter, who was playing with her two friends, he lured the victim girl and taking her inside raped her. The allegation was also that the minor girl was raped for some more days by the accused/applicant. Accordingly, the aforementioned case was registered against the accused/applicant and the accused/applicant was arrested on 22.12.2021. After completion of the investigation, Charge-sheet was filed against the accused/applicant under Sections 376AB/(2)(N) of the IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The accused/applicant was granted bail on 26.08.2022 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge (POCSO), Page No.# 3/4 Morigaon, Assam and thereafter he remained on bail. However, during the trial, a petition was filed by the father of the victim girl before the Trial Court stating that the victim girl was being pressurized by the accused/applicant to compromise the case and therefore, prays for cancellation of the bail granted to the accused/ applicant. After hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court by its order dated 29.05.2025 cancelled the bail granted to the accused/ applicant vide order dated 26.08.2022. The learned counsel appearing for the accused/applicant submits that the accused/applicant is falsely implicated in the instant case and in fact there was a family dispute between both the families of the victim and the accused/applicant regarding a jackfruit tree which is situated in the boundary of the house of the victim and the accused/applicant. Therefore, he submits that due to enmity between the families, the instant F.I.R. was filed to harass the accused/applicant by the family of the informant. He further submits that since the accused/applicant has already spent a long period in judicial custody and trial is on the verge of completion, he should be allowed to go on bail. On the other hand, the learned Addl. P.P. for the State submits that the accused/applicant has violated the conditions of the bail by pressurizing the victim girl for out of the Court settlement which is totally unwarranted from the accused/applicant. He further submits that all the Page No.# 4/4 prosecution witnesses have already been examined and only the defence witness(es) are to be examined and therefore, not much time will be required for completion of the trial. He further submits that the trial got prolonged only because of the reasons attributable to the accused/applicant as he took adjournments on various occasions. This Court has gone through the materials brought before this Court and also perused the scanned copy of the Trial Court Record. After hearing the submissions made by the respective counsel appearing for the parties as well as the learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No.2, this Court is of the considered opinion that since the trial is progressing at a reasonable speed and there are possibilities that the trial will be completed soon, the instant bail application does not merit any interference from this Court. In view of the aforesaid, the instant Bail Application is rejected and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant