Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010149722026 2026:GAU-AS:10956 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2028/2026 HARESWAR KUMAR S/O LATE PANESWAR KUMAR R/O SOUTH GANESH NAGAR, NILGIRI PATH,NEAR LAKSHMI TEMPLE, P.S. BASISTHA,DISTRICT KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:REKHA HANDIQUE D/O LATE SUREN HANDIQUE R/O ASSAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR LAST GATE P.S. DISPUR DISTRICT KAMRUP METRO ASSAM PIN 781006 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R C SAIKIA, MR. A CHAUDHURY,MR. B K MAHAJAN,MS. K SAIKIA,S NAZNIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. M ISLAM(R2) Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 06-08-2026 Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. R.C. Saikia assisted by the learned counsel Mr. M. Ahmed, for the petitioner Hareswar Kumar, who has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 29.06.2026 in connection with Dispur Police Station Case No. 202/2026 registered under Sections 74/75/76/78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and newly adduce Section 64 (2)(f) and 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that a false case has been brought up against the petitioner. The Investigating Officer ought to have registered a case under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, but erroneously the case was registered under Section 6 of the POSCO Act. It is submitted that there is no allegation of penetrative sexual assault, but the eager Investigating Officer went ahead and booked the petitioner under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 3. The FIR unfolds that the victim was only 14 (Fourteen) years old. The petitioner is the victim's uncle. The victim's mother is the younger sister of the petitioner's wife. The petitioner allegedly is 52 (Fifty Two) years old and he has been traumatizing the victim continuously by frequently committing sexual assault for one and a half years. It is alleged that the petitioner had touched the victim inappropriately and forcefully demanded sexual favours from the victim by forcefully kissing her and attempting to remove her garments. The victim Page No.# 3/5 tried to resist, but the petitioner forcefully committed sexual assault on the victim. 4. It is true that there is no allegation of penetrative sexual assault against the petitioner, but the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. P.S. Lahkar has submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is of serious nature. The petitioner is 52 (Fifty Two) years old as alleged, whereas the victim is only 14 (Fourteen) years old. The statement of the victim under Section 183 BNSS clearly reveals that the petitioner continuously harassed the victim and committed sexual assault on her. Being the victim's uncle, the petitioner is a formidable figure in the family, and the victim who felt intimidated, could not inform the matter to her family members immediately. 5. I have also scrutinized the statement of the victim. Indeed, there are incriminating materials in the Case Diary against the petitioner. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. P.S. Lahkar has seriously raised objections against the submission of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that the victim's mother has executed an affidavit, stating that the FIR was lodged based on miscommunication between herself and her daughter. The victim's mother who is the informant, has no objection if the petitioner is not proceeded upon. It is submitted that in a case of such a serious nature, the victim's evidence is to be recorded, lest the victim may be influenced by the petitioner, if he is at large. Both the parties are to be held liable under Section 22 of the POCSO Act. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also submitted that the Page No.# 4/5 petitioner's plea for bail on the ground of health issues cannot be accepted as his medical certificate does not appear to be reliable. 8. After considering the submissions at the bar, I have considered the petitioner's age. The petitioner has already been behind bars for more than a month. The medical certificate reveals that the petitioner is suffering from backache. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is willing to abide by any stringent bail conditions if imposed upon him. 9. In view of the foregoing discussions, the petitioner is enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with a suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court under the conditions that :- (i) \the petitioner shall not exercise threats to the victim or try to influence the victim, (ii) the petitioner shall refrain from such activities with which he is alleged and, (iii) the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior written permission. 10. On breach of any of the bail conditions, the Court is at liberty to immediately cancel the bail granted to the petitioner. 11. In terms of the above observation, this Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Page No.# 5/5 Comparing Assistant