JUDGMENT : Anjan Moni Kalita, J. Heard Mr. B. D. Konwar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. H. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-applicant. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Addl. P.P., representing the State as well as Ms. N. Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent no. 2. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, praying for granting bail to the accused-applicant in connection with Special Case (POCSO) No. 64/2025 (Demow P.S. Case No. 74/2025), registered under Section 75(2) of the BNS, 2023, read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012, pending before the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Sivasagar. 3. An FIR was lodged on 31.10.2025, by the mother of the victim girl before the Officer-In-Charge, Demow Police Station, alleging, inter alia, that on 29.10.2025, her daughter, a student of Class-X of Bamrajabari Higher Secondary School, has been allegedly kissed and sexually assaulted by an Assistant Teacher, namely, Shri Ajay Chetia (accused-applicant) inside the school premises under the pretext of a drama lesson which was followed by a threat not to disclose the incident. 4. On receipt of the FIR, the Police registered Demow P.S. Case No. 74/2025, under the aforementioned Sections against the accused-applicant. The accused-applicant was arrested on 01.11.2025 and he was forwarded before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Sivasagar. 5. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer had submitted the Charge-sheet being Charge-sheet No. 71/2025 dated 25.11.2025, under Sections 75(2)/351(2) of the BNS, 2023, read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012, before the aforesaid court of learned Special Judge (POCSO), Sivasagar. Accordingly, on 22.12.2025, the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Sivasagar, framed charges against the accused-applicant under Section 75(2) read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 6. The Trial Court Record in connection with the instant case has been produced before this Court and the same is perused. 7. It is seen that 6(six) out of 8(eight) PWs have already been examined before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Sivasagar and the trial seems to have been proceeded in reasonably good speed with chances of conclusion of the same soon. 8. Mr. Konwar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused-applicant, submits that the accused-applicant was arrested on 01.11.2025 and since then he is behind the bars. 8. Mr. Konwar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused-applicant, submits that the accused-applicant was arrested on 01.11.2025 and since then he is behind the bars. He submits that the accused-applicant being an Assistant Teacher in the school, he has already been placed under suspension. He submits that since 6(six) out of 8(eight) PWs have already been examined, further custodial detention of the accused-applicant, at this stage, may not be required as there is no likelihood of him influencing the trial. He submits that there are many contradictions could be seen from the depositions of the PWs and chances of conviction of the accused-applicant in the instant case, is very minimal. He further submits that there is no allegation of any penetrative sexual offence present in the instant case and the allegation is only of offence under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. Therefore, he submits that taking into account the allegations and the contradictory statements made before the Trial Court, this Court should allow the accused-applicant to go on bail at this stage. 9. Per contra, Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, opposes the bail application, submitting that the trial is going on in a very reasonable speed and it is expected to be completed very soon. He further submits that materials which are available in the TCR show prima facie, involvement of the accused-applicant in the offences so alleged in the FIR. Therefore, at this stage, the accused-applicant should not be granted bail. 10. Ms. N. Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the informant (respondent no.2) has opposed the prayer for bail by the accused-applicant. She submits that the victim girl is a minor who is studying in Class-X and she is presently undergoing her matriculation examination. She submits that since Section 10 of the POCSO Act is involved in the instant case, the rigors of Section 29 of the POCSO Act will be squarely applicable to the case and therefore, at this stage, the accused-applicant should not be granted bail by this Court. She submits that, vide an order dated 09.01.2026, the bail application of the accused-applicant has already been rejected by the Special Judge (POCSO), Sivasagar, which clearly reflects that the fact of the victim girl’s on-going matriculation examination and her disturbed mind was rightly considered by the Trial Court while rejecting the bail application of the accused-applicant. She submits that, vide an order dated 09.01.2026, the bail application of the accused-applicant has already been rejected by the Special Judge (POCSO), Sivasagar, which clearly reflects that the fact of the victim girl’s on-going matriculation examination and her disturbed mind was rightly considered by the Trial Court while rejecting the bail application of the accused-applicant. She submits that since she is undergoing her matriculation examination, at this stage, if the accused-applicant is granted bail, her mind will be disturbed and that may adversely affect her performance in the examination. In this connection, the learned counsel has referred to the case of “‘ X’ Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh ” , reported in 2026 1 SCR 484 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that while considering a bail of this nature, the Court has to take into account the nature and gravity of the offences and the statutory rigors under the provision under the POCSO Act. In the same connection, the learned counsel has also referred to the case of “ Suo Moto W.P. (Crl.)/1/2025” of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. It is seen that the victim girl is a minor girl whereas the allegations are against the teacher of her own school. It is seen that after framing of the charges on 22.12.2025, the trial has proceeded in a reasonable speed and 6(six) out of 8(eight) PWs have already been examined and it is expected that the trial would be completed within a reasonable time. 12. This Court has also taken into account of the fact that the accused-applicant is a teacher of the school, wherein the victim girl studies and at this point of time, the victim girl is undergoing her matriculation examination. The informant has also expressed before the Trial Court that the victim girl is in a disturbed condition since the incident occurred. Since the allegation against the teacher is of sexual assault on her own student and the victim girl is in a position of shock and under that condition, she is undergoing her matriculation examination at this point of time, this Court is of the considered view that release of the accused-applicant, at this stage, may further harm the already disturbed mental condition of the minor victim girl. Though liberty is utmost priority under the constitutional mandates, the nature of allegations and other circumventing factors need to be considered while hearing a bail application. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that, at this stage, the accused-applicant should not be granted bail and accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected. 13 . In view of the aforesaid, the instant Bail Application is disposed of.