Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010179912025 2025:GAU-AS:15689 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2643/2025 PRAKASH GOP ALIAS PRAKASH BARMAN S/O SRI NITAI GOP R/O VILL- BARALAKHAT P.S. SIPAJHAR, DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:PUSHPA CHETRI S/O LT. TANKESWAR CHETRI R/O DALOIPARA P.S. KALAIGAON DIST. UDALGUR Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M AHMED, N. CHOUDHURY,MR A. ALI,A. K. KANU Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, DR. P AGARWAL, AMICUS CURIAE (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 19-11-2025 Heard Mr. M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the accused applicant. Also heard Ms N. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Page No.# 2/3 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of bail to the accused applicant in connection with Kalaigaon P.S. Case No. 35/2025, under Section 329(4)/64(1) BNS, read with Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. 3. The allegation as alleged in the FIR dated 16.06.2025 by the informant is that the informant’s minor daughter was raped by threatening her to kill by the accused applicant. It was alleged that the incident came to light, when the minor girl was taken to a hospital after complaining of stomach ache. 4. The learned counsel for the accused applicant submits that accused applicant has already spent more than 155 days behind the bars and after filing of the charge sheet, charges has also been framed in the instant matter. Therefore, he submits that further custodial detention in the case may not be required and prays that accused applicant should be granted bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that though the charge sheet has been filed and charges have been framed, neither the victim nor the informant have been called for by the trial court for their deposition as yet. In view of the aforesaid, she submits that, at this stage, bail should not be granted to the accused applicant. 6. The learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent No.2 Page No.# 3/3 submits that there is a clear implication of the accused applicant by the victim girl in her statement before the magistrate. And since, the victim is yet to be produced before the trial court for her deposition, at this stage, the accused applicant should not be granted bail. 7. This Court has gone through the case diary as well as the TCR submitted before this Court. After finding the fact that there is, prima facie, clear implication of involvement of accused applicant in the alleged offence and taking into account that the victim is yet to be produced before the trial court for her deposition, this is not a fit case wherein the accused applicant should be granted bail, at this stage. Accordingly, bail application is rejected, at this stage. JUDGE Comparing Assistant