Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010175022025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2552/2025 HITESH SAHARIA S/O LATE BIRENDRA SAHARIA R/O IVLL- LOZORA P.S. SIPAJHAR DIST. DARRANG,ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY THE PP,ASSAM 2:SRI TULEN DEKA S/O LATE MUKUNDRA DEKA R/O VILL- LOZORA P.S. SIPAJHAR DIST. DARRANG ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K AZAD, MS S DEVI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR A N AHMED (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 14.11.2025 Heard Mr. HRA Choudhdury, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. A.K. Azad, learned counsel for the accused applicant. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Addl. P.P., appearing for the State Page No.# 2/3 respondent. None appears for the respondent No. 2/ the informant though the name of the learned Amicus Curiae was shown in the cause list. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for granting bail to the accused applicant in connection with Sipajhar P.S. Case No. 112/2025 under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. 3. The allegation made in the FIR dated 26.07.2025 filed by the informant is that while minor son was studying in his room on 26.07.2025 at around 8 p.m., the accused applicant after entering into the room, gagging the mouth of his son, rapped her minor son. Accordingly, after receipt of the FIR, Sipajhar P.S. Case No. 112/2025 under Section 4 of the POCSO Act was registered against the accused applicant. 4. The learned Senior Counsel for the accused applicant submits that the accused applicant was having an affair with the widowed sister of the informant and therefore, at certain times, he used to visit the house of the informant to see her. He further submits that the aforesaid sister had taken an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as loan from him and the same was not returned to him instead of repeated requests for return. He submits that due to aforesaid fact, the relationship between the accused applicant and the sister of the informant got deteriorated. Due to such fact, the instant FIR was lodged against the accused applicant by the informant to avoid the payment that was due from his sister to the accused applicant. He submits that the accused applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case and no such offence as alleged in the FIR, has been committed by the accused. He further submits that the accused applicant was arrested on 27.07.2024 and since then he is inside the jail, therefore, he prays that the accused applicant should be enlarged on bail, taking into account his long detention in jail as well as other facts relevant to the instant case. 5. On the other hand, Mr. K. Baishya, learned APP has submitted that the case diary of the instant case has been received and there are sufficient incriminating materials in the case diary against the accused applicant to prima facie implicate him in the instant case. Therefore he opposed granting of any bail to the accused applicant at this stage. 6. This court has gone through the case diary produced by the learned APP and heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. From the perusal of the case diary, specially the statement of the victim as well as the sister of the informant, it is prima facie seen that there are sufficient incriminating materials pointing finger to the guilt of the accused applicant, therefore, after considering the kind of offences as alleged in the FIR as well as the materials in the Page No.# 3/3 case diary, this court is not in favour of granting bail to the accused applicant at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the instant bail application stand dismissed and prayer for bail stands rejected. 8. Case diary be sent back forthwith. JUDGE Comparing Assistant