Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010142482026 2026:GAU-AS:11655 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1932/2026 SHRI SHIVAM BASFORE S/O SHRI DIPAK BASFORE R/O KHELMATI, WARD NO. 14, NEAR COLLEGE CHARIALI,P.O.AND P.S. NORTH LAKHIMPUR,DISTRICT LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN 787001. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:SHRI RUPOM CHUTIA S/O SHRI DIMBESWAR CHUTIA R/O HATILUNG JURHATIA GAON P.O. P.S. NORTH LAKHIMPUR DISTRICT LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN 787001 Advocate for the Petitioner : DR. S R A NASER, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR B K BARUAH(R2),MS DHANESWARI K(R2) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 17.08.2026 Heard Dr. S. R. A. Naser, learned counsel for the accused and Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. Also heard Mr. B. K. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. This application, under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, is preferred by the accused, namely, Shri Shivam Basfore, who has been languishing in jail hajot since 18.06.2026, in connection with North Lakhimpur P.S. Case No. 192/2026, corresponding to G.R. No. 528/2026, and GDE No. 394, dated 17.06.2026, registered under Sections 65(1)/62/74/127(2) of the of BNS, 2023, read with Sections 4/18 of the POCSO Act, 2012, for grant of bail. 3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by one Ratan Chutia (actual name withheld), on 17.06.2026. The essence of allegation against the present accused, in the FIR dated 17.06.2026, is that on 17.06.2026, at about 6:30 A.M., while his daughter, namely, Smti. ‘X’, aged about 15 years, was returning home from tuition near Bogolijaan High School, the accused dragged her into one RCC building and closed all the doors and windows and tried to commit rape upon her. 4. Mr. Naser, learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused was arrested on 18.06.2026, and since then, he has been languishing in jail hajot for the last 60 days. He also submits that after completion of investigation, the I.O. laid charge-sheet in this matter, but till date, charge has not yet been framed. Page No.# 3/4 4.1 Mr. Naser further submits that at the relevant point of time, the accused was only 20 years old, and that the accused is ready to face trial and will appear before the learned Trial Court on each and every date and therefore, he has contended to allow this petition. 5. Per contra, Mr. Goswami, learned APP for the State respondent, has vehemently opposed the petition. He submits that the victim girl, in her statements under Sections 180/183 of the BNSS, 2023, has clearly implicated the accused with the offences alleged in the FIR. 5.1 Mr. Goswami also submits that the trial has not yet started and the accused and the victim belong to the same locality and if the accused is enlarged on bail at this stage, then possibility of influencing/intimidating the witnesses cannot be ruled out and under such circumstances, he has contended to dismiss the petition. 6. Mr. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, has also opposed the petition on the ground that the offences are serious in nature. He also submits that the trial has not yet started and charge has also not yet been framed and under such circumstances, he has contended to dismiss the petition. 7. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also gone through the scanned copy of the record received from the learned Trial Court. 8. It appears that the I.O. has completed the investigation and submitted Page No.# 4/4 charge-sheet against the accused under Sections 65(1)/62/74/127(2) of the of BNS, 2023, read with Sections 4/18 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 9. It also appears that the allegations are serious in nature and the victim girl, in her statements under Section 180/183 BNSS, 2023, has clearly implicated the accused with the offences alleged in the FIR. 10. It further appears that the accused has threatened the victim girl and indisputedly, both the victim and the accused belong to the same locality. As such, the possibility of inducement, coercion and threat to the witnesses, who are yet to be examined, cannot be ruled out at this stage. 11. Under the given facts and circumstances and also considering the nature and gravity of the offence, 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. And accordingly, this bail application same stands dismissed. 12. In terms of the above, this Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant