Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010017232025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./249/2025 JAYANTA DAS S/O SAMIN RABONGSHI R/O VILL-KARIPARA P.S.GORESWAR DIST. TAMULPUR,ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:DIPANJALI DEKA WIFE OF HITESH DEKA R/O-VILLAGE-BHOGPUR (TAMULIKHAT) P. S. -GORESWAR DISTRICT-TAMULPUR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A SHARMA, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. A AHMED ( Amicus Curiae, R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 28.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. A. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as Mr. A. Page No.# 2/4 Ahmed, the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent no.2. 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS has been filed by the petitioner for the second time before this Court seeking bail in connection with Special POCSO Case No. 18/2024 pending before the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Baksa. 3. The petitioner is facing a trial before the said Court on charges under Section 376(2)(m)/376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been detained behind the bars since 07.11.2023 (for the last 478 days). He also submits that on the earlier occasion when he had approached this Court his bail application was disposed of by the order dated 15.10.2024 passed in bail application no. 1716/2024 wherein an observation was made by this Court that he may approach the Trial Court after recording of the evidence of the mother of the victim girl who is also the first informant in this case. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submits that the mother of the victim girl as well as the victim have already been examined as prosecution witnesses. The Trial Court has rejected the prayer for bail on the ground that there are incriminating materials against the present petitioner as well as the offence involved is heinous in nature. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the sole bread earner of his family, which includes a minor boy of 7 (seven) years of age. He also submits that as the petitioner is detained behind the bars, it is difficult to pursue his defence in the trial which is going on in POCSO Case No.18/2024. He submits that there are 10 listed witnesses in the charge-sheet and till date only 2 of them have been examined. It is unlikely that the trial would culminate soon. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Page No.# 3/4 State opposes the grant of bail of the petitioner on the ground that both the victim girl and the first informant have implicated the petitioner in this case, and if he is released on bail at this stage, he may threatened the witnesses. 8. It is also submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State that the offence involved in this case is of serious nature and therefore the bail may not be granted. 9. On the other hand, the learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. A. Ahmed, submitted that as regards to merit of this case is concerned, there are sufficient incriminating materials against him in the record as both the victim girl as well as the first informant had in their testimony implicated the present petitioner. 10. I have considered the submissions made by both sides. 11. Considering the fact that on the earlier occasion when the prayer for bail was rejected, this Court had made an observation that after examination of the informant as well as the victim, the prayer for bail may be considered by the Trial Court. 12. Though the Trial Court has dismissed the prayer for bail on the ground that the offence involved in this case is of serious nature and there are implicating materials against the present petitioner, however as the victim girl and the first informant have already been examined there is remote possibility of the petitioner influencing the material witnesses, and more stringent conditions may be imposed on the petitioner while granting bail so that he may not do so. 13. Further considering the period of detention already undergone by the petitioner (478 days), this court is inclined to grant bail to the above named petitioner. 14. In view of the above, the above named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the following conditions :- Page No.# 4/4 I. That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement threat or promise to the victim or to the listed witnesses of this case so as to dissuade them from deposing against him in the said trial. II. The petitioner shall co-operate in the trial. 15. This bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant