Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040013442025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : BA/101/2025 Sorang Takia Son of Sorang Tabe, a resident of Ania Village, Nirjuli, PO and PS Nirjuli, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and Anr represented by the PP of AP 2:Sorang Tajik Age: 0 Occupation : (Victims father) resident of Chimpu PO RK Mission PS Chimpu Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Abhai Kumar Singh, Tsering Nyima,Nabam Kakum Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Dejum Tally,1 P Tsering Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER 05.09.2025 Heard Mr. Abhai Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Hage Laxmi, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1; and Mr. T. Tali, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2. 2. The petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking release of the accused Shri Sorang Talo who has been arrested in connection with Itanagar Women P.S. Case No. 03/2025, registered under Sections 137(2)/87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS), 2023, read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 3. The present case was initially registered for missing of the victim girl. However, after recovery of the victim girl, a case was registered for an offence of kidnap and aggravated penetrative sexual assault against the victim girl under Sections 137(2)/87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS), 2023. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused under the said offence. Thereafter, the learned trial Court framed charge against the accused for the offence under Sections 137(2)/87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS), 2023, and now, the case is on trial. 4. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that since the arrest of the accused on 26.02.2025, he has been languishing in the custody for about 7(seven) months and the trial of the case is likely to take long time. Page No.# 3/4 5. He further submitted that the accused is innocent of the charges and considering his long period of detention and also taking into account the fact that the trial of the case is likely to take longer time to conclude; it is prayed that the accused be released on regular bail. The accused is ready to abide by any terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court for his bail. 6. Ms. Laxmi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh, has vehemently opposed the grant of regular bail to the accused on the ground that the allegations leveled against the accused, is serious in nature, he, having committed aggregative penetrative sexual assault on his own biological sister. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh, has also submitted that there are sufficient incriminating materials found against the accused and he is likely to be convicted in the case. 7. Ms. Laxmi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh, has further submitted that the victim girl is yet to be examined and there is every likelihood of the accused influencing her, he, being a member of the same family. She, therefore, prayed that the prayer of the petitioner for grant of regular bail to the accused, herein, be rejected. 8. The record reveals that the victim girl, at the time of the commission of the offence, in question, was aged about 11(eleven) years whereas, the accused who was a major at the relevant point of time, is her own brother. It further reveals that the accused took away the victim girl and stayed outside the State in a rented house and committed the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault against the victim girl i.e. his own minor sister. 9. The medical examination report and the deposition of the witnesses also corroborated the alleged commission of the above offence. It is seen that earlier, the bail application moved for release of the accused on bail was rejected by the Page No.# 4/4 trial Court on the ground that releasing him, on bail, will adversely affect the case of the prosecution as the victim is a vulnerable witness and there is every possibility of hampering and tampering of the witnesses in the present case, and also that there is a prima facie case against the accused for commission of the alleged offence. 10. The learned trial Court while rejecting the bail prayer of the petitioner has referred the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of ‘X’ v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 27.11.2024, reported in 2024 4 Crimes(SC) 537/2025 1 Supreme 494, wherein, it was observed that “in serious offence like rape, dacoity, murder, etc., once the trial commenced and the prosecution starts examining its evidence, the Court, be it trial Court, or, the High Court, should be loathe in entertaining the bail application of an accused of the case”. 11. I have heard the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the materials brought on record. 12. Considering the seriousness of the case against the accused for commission of the alleged offence and also considering that the trial has already commenced; and the victim is yet to be examined by the Court and also taking into account that there is possibility of the accused influencing the victim girl, he, being one of the blood brother; this Court is of the considered view that releasing of the accused before examination of the vulnerable witnesses i.e. victim and informant of the instant case; is not warranted at this stage. 13. In view of the above, the bail application is accordingly, stands rejected. 14. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to file a fresh bail application, on changed circumstances of the case status, if so advised. JUDGE Comparing Assistant