Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010226852025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3429/2025 BHAITY HAZARIKA S/O-LT LOBON HAZARIKA R/O- KHANIKAR GAON, KHAMUN, SIVASAGAR, P.S. BOKOTA DIST-SIVASAGAR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:DR PRADIP BORAH MEDICAL OFFICER DEMOW MODEL HOSPITAL DEMOW SIVASAGAR Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B P BORAH, MR P J DUTTA,MR. A KHANDAKAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER 15.12.2025 Heard Mr. P. J. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the accused/applicant. Also heard Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State. Page No.# 2/4 This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for granting bail to the accused/applicant in connection with Special (POCSO) Case No.50/2025 pending before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge –cum- Special Judge POCSO, Sivasagar arising out of Bokota Nemuguri P.S. Case No.16/2025 registered under Section 6 of the POCSO Act read with Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. The gist of the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. dated 06.08.2025 is that one Dr. Pradip Borah, Medical Officer has complained that one of his patient, namely, X, who was of 17 years of age at that point of time, admitted in his hospital in a case of teenage pregnancy. In view of the filing of the aforesaid F.I.R., Bokota Nemuguri P.S. Case No.16/2025 was registered under Section 6 of the POCSO Act read with Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. Subsequently, the accused/applicant was arrested on 21.08.2025 and since then for the last 116 days the accused/applicant is behind the bars. The learned counsel for the accused/applicant submits that the accused/applicant is married to the victim girl and they have a child and after the marriage they have been living happily as husband and wife. He further submits that due to the keeping of the accused/applicant behind the bars, the family including the infant is suffering quite a lot. He submits that since the complaint was made by a Page No.# 3/4 doctor and not by his wife and also looking into the peculiar facts of the case that the husband and wife are living happily, he should be allowed to go on bail at this stage. The learned counsel further submits that since the accused/applicant is behind the bars for last 116 days, further custodial detention is not required in the instant case. The learned Addl. P.P., on the other hand, submits that the updated TCR is yet to be received in the instant case to find out whether the victim was examined or not. On this submission, the learned counsel for the accused/ applicant submits that the victim and the informant both have already been examined in the instant matter. In the instant case, Ms. M. K. Brown, learned counsel was appointed as Amicus Curiae. However, when the matter is taken up, she is not present. Taking into account the peculiar facts of the case to the effect that the victim and the accused are husband and wife, this Court is of the considered opinion that further detention of the accused/applicant is not necessary at this stage. Taking into account the whole things in it’s entirety, this Court is of the opinion that the accused/applicant should be granted the privilege of bail at this stage. Accordingly, it is directed that that the accused/applicant shall be released forthwith on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with a Page No.# 4/4 surety of like nature to the satisfaction of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge –cum- Special Judge POCSO, Sivasagar, subject to the following conditions :- (1) That the accused/applicant shall regularly appear during the trial and shall not try to influence or intimidate the witnesses in any manner; (2) That the accused/applicant shall not commit any offence while on bail. In view of the aforesaid directions, the Bail Application is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant