Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010062462025 2025:GAU-AS:5949 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./965/2025 SHIVJI PATEL S/O SRI MISHRILAL PATEL R/O S.R. LOHIA ROAD , TINISUKIA , PO AND PS TINISUKIA, DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM PERMANENT RESIDENT OF - SHANTI NAGAR, CHAKIA VILLAGE,P.S. MADHUBAN DIST. EAST CHAMPARAN, BIHAR. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PP, ASSAM 2:SURAJ PRASAD SHARMA S/O SRI DEVI PRASAD SHARMA R/O S.R. LOHIA ROAD TINISUKIA PO AND PS TINSUKIA DIST. TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN- 786125 MOBILE NO. 708631650 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N HASAN, MR. I K BURAGOHAIN,MR. A HASAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. R CHOUDHURY (Amicus Curiae, R-2) Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 14.05.2025 Heard Mr. N. Hassan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1 and Ms. R. Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No. 2. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with POCSO Case No. 161/2024, under Section 8 of POCSO Act, pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Tinsukia (corresponding to Tinsukia P.S. Case No. 377/2024). 3. Scanned copy of the case record has already been received and I have perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Hassan, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the present accused/petitioner was arrested in connection with this case on 30.10.2024 and for last 197 days, he is in custody. The charge-sheet of the case has already been filed and out of 8 (eight) cited witnesses, 4 (four) witnesses have already been examined including the informant, victim and her parents, who are considered to be the vital witnesses of the prosecution. Thus, considering the length of detention and the present status of the case, the present accused/petitioner may be enlarged on bail. More so, he submitted as Page No.# 3/5 the vital witnesses have already been examined by prosecution, there may not be any probability of hampering or tampering with the evidences of the witnesses. The petitioner originally hails from Bihar, but he will abide by any condition of bail and will provide genuine surety if he is enlarged on bail. 5. Mr. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted in this regard that the victim girl was only 12 years of age at the relevant time of incident and she fully implicated the present petitioner in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS. More so, the accused is from Bihar and thus, the probability of absconding of the accused/petitioner also cannot be denied at this stage. He further submitted that 4 (four) witnesses have already been examined by the prosecution and hence, the trial is about to be completed within a short period and accordingly, he raised objection and submitted that the bail prayer of the present petitioner may not be considered at this stage. 6. Ms. R. Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No. 2, also submitted in this regard that the P.W.-2, i.e. the victim of this case, has directly implicated the present petitioner and the victim was only 12 years of age at the time of incident, whereas the present petitioner was 36 years of age who committed such misdeed with the victim girl. She also submitted that the accused hails from the State of Bihar and thus, the probability of absconding cannot be denied at this stage. 7. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides and also on perusal of materials available on case record, it is seen that the vital witnesses of the prosecution has already been examined by the learned Trial Court and hence there cannot be any probability of hampering or tampering Page No.# 4/5 with the evidences of the vital witnesses of the prosecution. Therefore, without going by the detail of the merit of case and only considering the length of detention already undergone by the accused/petitioner, I am of the view that further custodial interrogation of the accused/petitioner seems to be not necessary here in this case and hence, find it a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the present accused/petitioner. 8. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only with 2 (two) sureties of like amount, provided that one surety has to be a government servant, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Tinsukia, the accused/ petitioner, namely, Shivji Patel, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall appear before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Tinsukia, on each and every date to be fixed by the Court; (ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that the petitioner shall submit his Aadhar Card and PAN Card before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Tinsukia; and Page No.# 5/5 (iv) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Tinsukia, without prior permission. 9. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant