Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010252602025 2026:GAU-AS:10345 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3728/2025 NIBARAN DAS S/O LATE NANI GOPAL DAS, R/O VILL - SALGANGA, KADAMTALA P.S. UDHARBOND, DIST-CACHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2:DHANJIT CHOUDHARY DCPO CACHAR SILCHAR S/O BASANTA KUMAR CHOUDHARY R/O BARPARA WARD NO. 20 BACKSIDE OF LIC REGIONAL OFFICE P.S. BONGAIGAON ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : DR R C BORPATRA GOHAIN, MR. R D PHUKAN,P SINHA,MR. S AHMED,MR. P P BARUAH,MR. K K HANDIQUE,MRS. S BORPATRA GOHAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, DARAK ULLAH, AMICUS CURIAE FOR R-2 Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 28.07.2026 Heard Mr. P.P. Baruah, learned counsel for the accused. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1; and Mr. D. Ullah, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No. 2. 2. This petition, under Section 483, BNSS is preferred by accused, namely, Nibaran Das, who has been languishing in jail hazot in connection with Special POCSO Case No. 92/2025, pending before the Court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Cachar, Silchar, under Sections 74/75(2) of the BNS, 2023, read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 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 Dhanjit Choudhury, District Child Protection Officer, Cachar, on 20.08.2025. The essence of allegation against the present accused is that he was a private tutor of the victim girl, who is 16 years of age and studying in Class-X of Morley H.S. School. On 23.07.2025, the accused called the victim to his house for tuition and thereafter, he subjected her to sexual assault. 4. Mr. Baruah, learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused has been languishing in jail hazot for last 343 days and that the victim has already been examined and her evidence is demolished in cross-examination, especially in paragraph Nos. 14 and 15 of her evidence before the learned trial Court. He also submits that the accused is the only earning member of his family and he has the burden to look after his minor children, and that he is ready to cooperate with the investigating agency and he will face trial and appear before Page No.# 3/4 the learned trial Court on each and every date, and therefore, Mr. Baruah has contended to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1 has vehemently opposed the petition. He submits that out of nine witnesses cited in the charge-sheet, only one witness i.e. the victim has been examined, who has clearly implicated the accused with the offence alleged in the FIR, and she also stands with the statement given to police under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023, and that the accused is the neighbour of the victim. He further submits that if at this stage, bail is granted to the accused, there is every possibility of tampering with the witnesses, and under such circumstances, he has contended to dismiss the petition. 6. Mr. Ullah, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No. 2 has also adopted the submission of Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, and he submits that the evidence adduced by the victim could not be demolished in her cross-examination as paragraph Nos. 14 and 15 are negative suggestion which has no evidentiary value, and given the nature of the offence and the charge framed against the accused, and also the punishment prescribed for the same, the accused may not be enlarged on bail. 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. It appears that the accused has been charged under Sections 74/75(2) of the BNS, 2023, read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution side has examined the victim who has clearly implicated the accused with the Page No.# 4/4 charges. Moreover, other material witnesses are yet to be examined. Besides, the accused is the neighbour of the victim girl, and as such, tampering of witnesses also cannot be ruled out if he is enlarged on bail at this stage. 9. Under the given facts and circumstances, 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, and accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant