Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010091342026 2026:GAU-AS:10346 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1257/2026 SRI SHIV THAPA ALIAS MOTE S/O GOVIND BAHADUR THA,RESIDENT OF PADUM PATHARGAON, NEAR NAOGH,P.O TELIYA SALP.S MERAPANI, DISTRICT GOLAGHAT, ASSAM,PIN 785705 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE P.P, ASSAM 2:SRI MON BAHADUR LIMBU S/O LATE BAL BAHADUR LIMBU R/O PODUMPATHAR P.O. TELIYA SAL P.S. MERAPANI DIST. GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN-78570 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR N N UPADHYAYA, MR. S UPADHAYA,MR. B B KAKATI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. L GOGOI (R2),M. K. BORAH (R2),C SAIKIA (R2),MR D J BORO (R2),MR. J K GOSWAMI (R2) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 28.07.2026 Heard Mr. N.N. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the accused. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1; and Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. This petition, under Section 483, BNSS is preferred by accused, namely, Shiv Thapa @ Mote, who has been languishing in jail hazot in connection with Merapani P.S. Case No. 90/2025, corresponding to Special (POCSO) Case No. 7/2026, under Section 75(2) of the BNS, 2023, read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act, pending before the Court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Golaghat, for grant of bail. 3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by one Manbahadur Limbu, on 28.10.2025. The essence of allegation against the present accused is that on 02.10.2025, he had subjected the granddaughter of the informant to sexual assault and also threatened to commit the same repeatedly. 4. Mr. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused has been languishing in jail hazot for last 273 days and in the meantime, three witnesses have already been examined. He also submits that the date of birth of the victim is doubtful as the birth certificate was obtained after the incident, and that the informant could not state the date of the occurrence and also there is delay in lodging the FIR. He further submits that since three of the witnesses have already been examined, further custodial detention of the accused may not be warranted in the interest of investigation, and therefore, he has contended to Page No.# 3/4 allow the petition. 5. Per contra, Mr. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1 has vehemently opposed the petition. He submits that the I.O. has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the accused and that three witnesses have been examined and they have also implicated the accused with the offence alleged in the FIR. He further submits that though the birth certificate was obtained after the incident, yet the medical evidence shows that the victim was below 12 years of age, and as such, the accused is not entitled to be enlarged on bail at this stage, and therefore, he has contended to dismiss the petition. 6. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has also adopted the submission of Mr. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, and he also supplemented that there are sufficient materials to show complicity of the accused with the offence alleged in the FIR, and that the victim is below 12 years, and under such circumstances, he has contended to dismiss the petition. 7. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the scanned copy of the record received from the learned trial Court. 8. In view of the evidence of the witnesses examined so far, and also in view of the nature and gravity of the offence and the punishment prescribed for the same, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the privilege of bail can be granted to the accused at this stage. There is every possibility of jumping bail if he is granted bail at this stage, and there is also chance of influencing the witnesses, who are yet to be examined. And in that view of the Page No.# 4/4 matter, this Court is inclined to dismiss the petition. JUDGE Comparing Assistant