Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010276002025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./4014/2025 SRI DAYAJIT GOGOI ALIAS MAINA SON OF SRI BHODRESWAR GOGOI, RESIDENT OF NO. 3 TORANI VILLAGE POLICE STATION MERAPANI, DISTRICT GOLAGHAT ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:SMTI DIPALI GOGOI WIFE OF SRI DULAL GOGOI RESIDENT OF NO. 10 KULAJAN POLICE STATION MERAPANI DISTRICT GOLAGHAT ASSAM PHONE NO. 600299543 Advocate for the Petitioner : A B DUTTA, MR B BORA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 25.02.2026 Heard Mr. A. B. Dutta, learned counsel for the accused applicant. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam Page No.# 2/3 and Mr. S. Kalita, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No.2. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (BNSS) 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused applicant in connection with Special (POCSO) Case No.87/2025, corresponding to Merapani P.S. Case No.74/2025, registered under Section 87 of BNS, 2023. 3. An FIR was lodged on 20.09.2025 by the mother of the victim girl, alleging that her daughter, aged about 17 years, was induced by the accused applicant and taken under the pretext of marriage. It was further alleged that, despite active search, she could not be located. On receipt of certain information, the victim was recovered from a place named Bhogdol in Jorhat. After their recovery, both the accused applicant and the victim were handed over to the police, and subsequently, the victim was taken back home. 4. On receipt of the FIR, the police registered Merapani P.S. Case No. 74/2025 under Section 87 of the BNS. 5. The accused applicant was arrested on 03.09.2025 and has been in custody for the last five months. After completion of the investigation, the police filed Charge-sheet No. 06/2025. The case is pending before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Golaghat, wherein two prosecution witnesses (PWs), including the victim, have already been examined. 6. The learned counsel for the accused applicant submits that since 11 (eleven) PWs have been listed in the charge-sheet, the trial is likely to take considerable time. Considering the duration of the applicant’s detention and the age of the victim, he submits that the accused applicant should be released on Page No.# 3/3 bail. 7. On the other hand, the learned Addl. P.P. opposes the bail application, submitting that there are prima facie materials against the accused applicant, and therefore, the prayer for bail should not be allowed at this stage. 8. Ms. Kalita, learned Amicus Curiae, submits that as per the medical report, the hymen of the victim girl is found to be broken. Considering that the victim is a minor, there are prima facie incriminating materials against the accused applicant; accordingly, she opposes the bail application. 9. Taking into account the facts of the case and after perusal of the TCR produced before this Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that, at this stage, the accused applicant should not be granted bail. Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant