Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010029962025 2025:GAU-AS:6062 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./431/2025 ROBINSON BAGH S/O ERAN BAGH R/O VILL- DUBI, P.S. LALUK DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SMTI. PHULMONI MINJ W/O LATE LUKASH MINJ R/O VILL- DUBI P.S. LALUK DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N J DUTTA, IMDADUL ISLAM,M RAHMAN,MR A BASUMATARY,MR. M M ZAMAN,MR N AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. N MAHAJAN, (AMICUS CURIAE, R-2) Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK 15/05/2025 Heard Mr. N J Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K K Parashar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent No. 1. Also heard Mr. N Mahajan, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No. 2/informant, mother of the minor victim. 2. The petitioner, namely, Robinson Bagh, son of Eran Bagh, resident of Village-Dubi, P.S. Laluk, District-Lakhimpur, has filed this application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, on 12.02.2025, praying for his bail in Special (POCSO) Case No. 84/2020 arising out of Laluk Police Station Case No. 387/2020 registered under Sections 417/376/313/511 IPC read with Section 4 of POCSO Act corresponding to G.R. No. 1994/2020, wherein he was arrested on 12.04.2024 and is in custody since then. 3. The contention of the petitioner herein is that considering his detention in custody since 12.04.2024, he should be considered for his bail in said Special (POCSO) Case No. 84/2020, presently pending before the Court of learned Special Judge (POCSO), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur. 4. Perused the records of the case that was called for by order dated 19.02.2025. 5. The respondent No. 2 as informant on 18.09.2020 submitted a written FIR before the Officer- in-Charge of Laluk Police Station against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner is a co-villager and for about last 7/8 months, he induced her minor daughter, who is about 16 years old by various means and also sexually assaulted her due to which she became pregnant. The minor daughter of the informant is presently under medication and the petitioner on two occasions gave medicines to her minor daughter for termination of her pregnancy. As such, by the said FIR dated 18.09.2020, the informant prayed before the authorities of Laluk Police Station to do the needful. Accordingly, Laluk P.S. Case No. 387/2020 under Sections 417/376/313/511 IPC read with Section 4 of POCSO Act corresponding to G.R. No. 1994/2020 was registered and the matter was investigated. 6. The statement of the minor victim girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur on 19.09.2020, i.e., the very next day after lodging of the FIR dated 18.09.2020 relating to said Laluk P.S. Case No. 387/2020 in which the victim girl implicated the petitioner of committing sexual assault on her due to which she became pregnant. Page No.# 3/5 In her said statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim also indicated that the petitioner asked her to consume certain medicines for termination of her pregnancy and on consuming such medicines, she had acute stomach ache for which her mother took her to Doctor. During her medical checkup, it was found that she is a pregnant of 24 weeks. 7. After completion of the investigation of the case, police on 30.07.2021 submitted a charge- sheet against the petitioner in said Laluk P.S. Case No. 387/2020 vide Charge-Sheet No. 140/2021 under Sections 417/376/313/511 IPC read with Section 4 of POCSO Act. 8. After filing of the charge-sheet in said Laluk P.S. Case No. 387/2020 corresponding to G.R. No. 1994/2020, the said case was re-registered and re-numbered as Special (POCSO) Case No. 84/2020 before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur. 9. It is seen that on 29.03.2022, the Court of learned Special Judge (POCSO), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur took cognizance of the offence under Sections 417/376/313/511 IPC read with Section 4 of POCSO Act and issued summons to the petitioner. On 19.09.2022, the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur in said Special (POCSO) Case No. 84/2020 framed charge under Sections 417/376/313 IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 10. From the records of the case, it is seen that out of the 9 prosecution witnesses named in the charge-sheet prosecution has adduced evidence of 5 of its witnesses as on 18.12.2024, who were thoroughly cross-examined by the defence (on behalf of the accused petitioner). 11. Mr. Mahajan, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No. 2/informant submitted that 22.05.2025 is the date fixed for evidence of the remaining witnesses of the case. 12. From the records of the case, it is also seen that earlier on 05.11.2020, the petitioner was released on bail in said Laluk P.S. Case No. 387/2020 by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur considering the fact that the Special Public Prosecutor did not raise any objection. 13. The case record also reflects that since the petitioner after his bail did not appear before the Court of learned Special Judge (POCSO), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur after filing of the charge-sheet on 30.07.2021 and issuance of summons on 29.03.2022, order of Non-Bailable Warrant of Arrest was issued against him and subsequently, on 12.04.2024, he was arrested in said Special (POCSO) Case No. 84/2020 arising out of Laluk P.S. Case No. 387/2020 and also produced before the learned Special Page No.# 4/5 Judge (POCSO), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur and since then, he is in custody. 14. The medical report of the victim including the x-ray report and her birth certificate produced by the prosecution before the Court of learned Special Judge (POCSO), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur reflects that at the time of the incident, the victim was a minor. 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of X -Vs.- State of Rajasthan, reported in (2024) INSC 909 = 2024 STPL 12498 SC have held that — In serious offences like rape, murder, dacioty etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court, be it the Trial Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail application of an accused of the case.” 16. Their Lordships in said X -Vs.- State of Rajasthan further held that — “Over a period of time, we have noticed two things, i.e., (i) either bail is granted after the charge is framed and just before the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before the trial court, or (ii) bail is granted once the recording of the oral evidence of the victim is complete by looking into some discrepancies here or there in the deposition and thereby testing the credibility of the victim. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial commences, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion which may either result in the conviction of the accused or acquittal of the accused. The moment the High Court exercises its discretion in favour of the accused and orders release of the accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence of the victim. It is only in the event if the trial gets unduly delayed and that too for no fault on the part of the accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on the ground that right of the accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed.” 17. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the materials available in the case records as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of X -Vs.- State of Rajasthan (Supra), the Court is of the view that the detention of the petitioner since 12.04.2024 cannot be considered for his bail in said Special (POCSO) Case No. 84/2020 arising out of Laluk P.S. Case No. 387/2020 as it is found that the right of the accused petitioner has not been infringed. 18. Accordingly, this bail application of the accused petitioner, Robinson Bagh, in said Special (POCSO) Case No. 84/2020 arising out of Laluk P.S. Case No. 387/2020 stands rejected. 19. However, it is made clear that the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur while adjudicating the said Special (POCSO) Case No. 84/2020 shall not be influenced by Page No.# 5/5 any of the observations made herein above in this bail application. 20. The Gauhati High Court Legal Services Authority shall pay the remuneration to Mr. N Mahajan, learned Amicus Curiae, who appeared for the informant/opposite party No.2, as being appointed by the Court and assisted the Court in adjudicating this matter, on raising a bill. JUDGE Comparing Assistant