Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040004022025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : BA/28/2025 Miss Leena Tallang a permanent resident of Village Papung Tallang, PO and PS Seppa, East Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and Anr represented by the PP of AP 2:XXX Age: 0 Occupation : Daughter of Shri Solung Lapung permanent resident of Lapung village PO Bameng PS Seppa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh and presently residing at Hydel Colony PO and PS Seppa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Dugmar Kamduk, Mitem Ratan,Bate Joel Koyu,Lokam Tadam,Mipe Ete,P Tashi,Kirpok Eshi Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Eho Menjo -BEFORE- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY -O R D E R- Page No.# 2/3 05.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. D Kamduk, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh. 2. The present bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 is filed for granting bail to the accused, namely, Shri Roshan Tallang in connection with the WPS case No. 10/2024 under Section 376(2)(f)(j)(n)/376(3) IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 3. The genesis and the background of the case is that after completion of the investigation charge-sheet was laid. Thereafter, charges were framed and the trial proceeded. To bring home the charges, the prosecution has adduced as many as 14 prosecution witnesses to establish his case. The statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. At that stage, when the matter was fixed for defence witnesses, the petitioner preferred a bail application before the learned trial court, which was registered as Bail Application No. 159/2024. The learned trial court by order dated 10.12.2024 refused to grant bail to the petitioner for the reason that the material discloses a prima-facie case against the petitioner. The ground taken by the petitioner that he may be enlarged on bail to prepare his defence, was also declined on the ground that completion of prosecution evidence, cannot be a sole ground for granting bail to a person facing trial. Being aggrieved, the present application is filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused has primarily urged that he may be granted bail to prepare his defence and to consult to his lawyer. The further ground is some ailment of his wife and son. 5. This court has also perused the material including the statement of the Page No.# 3/3 victim girl and other evidences including the medical evidences. 6. This court cannot be unmindful of the individual liberty of the accused person, however, at the same time while considering the prayer of the petitioner/ accused for grant of bail, this court cannot be ignorant of the material available on record. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, docity etc. once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining witnesses, the court should be loath in entertaining bail application of an accused. 7. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this court, more particularly, for the seriousness and magnitude of the offences and the conduct of the accused, this is not a fit case to exercise its discretionary power under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023. Accordingly, same stands dismissed at this stage. 8. However, taking note of the grievance of the petitioner for preparing his defence and consultation to his lawyer, it is provided that the petitioner/ accused be allowed to meet his lawyer alone in custody, if such permission is sought, so as to prepare his defence. 9. While, parting with the record, it is made clear that the observation made herein is for the purpose of consideration of the bail application and same shall not be treated as comment on the merit of the case, either of the prosecution or the defence. JUDGE Comparing Assistant