Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010137742026 2026:GAU-AS:11340 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1915/2026 SAJAD ALI S/O MOHAMMED ALI R/O BHASKARNAGAR, BAMUNIMAIDAN, CHANDMARI, KAMRUP (M), GUWAHATI- 781003, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:RINA DEVI W/O LATE BINOD SINGH BHASKARNAGAR BAMUNIMAIDAN PO AND PS CHANDMARI DIST KAMRUP M GUWAHATI- 781003 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR J I BARBHUIYA, MR. N ALI,MR A HOSSAIN,W.H. DEVI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, DR ANKIT TODI, AMICUS CURIAE R2 Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 12.08.2026 Heard Mr. N. Ali, learned counsel for the accused and Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. Also heard Dr. A. Todi, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No. 2. 2. This application, under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, is preferred by the accused, namely, Sajad Ali, who has been languishing in jail hajot since 18.03.2026, in connection with Chandmari P.S. Case No. 220/2025, registered under Section 75(2) of the of BNS, 2023, read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by one Reema Devi (actual name withheld), on 22.08.2025. The essence of allegation against the present accused in the FIR dated 22.08.2025, is that on 21.08.2025, in the afternoon, at about 2:30 P.M., the accused has subjected the daughter of the informant, namely, Smti. ‘X’ (name withheld), aged about 11 years, to sexual assault. But somehow, her daughter managed to escape from his grasp. 4. Mr. Ali, learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused was arrested on 18.03.2026, and since then he has been languishing in jail hajot for the last 147 days, and that after completion of investigation, the I.O. has laid charge-sheet in this matter, and that out of 5 witnesses cited in the charge Page No.# 3/4 sheet, 3 witnesses have been examined so far and there remains to examine only the Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer of the case. He also submits that the accused will appear before the learned Trial Court regularly and therefore, he has contended to allow this petition. 5. Per contra, Mr. Goswami, learned APP for the State respondent, has opposed the petition on the ground that trial is about to complete and if the accused is enlarged on bail at this stage, there maybe delay in disposal of the case. He also submits that the accused and the victim belong to the same locality and as such, 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. Dr. A. Todi, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No. 2, has also opposed the petition on the ground that trial is about to complete and that accused and the victim are living in the same vicinity and if the accused is enlarged on bail at this stage, possibility of influencing the witnesses cannot be ruled out and under such circumstances, she 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 Trial Court records. 8. It appears that the accused is behind the bars for the last 147 days. Further, it appears that after completion of investigation, the I.O. has laid charge-sheet in this case and charge under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012, Page No.# 4/4 has been framed against the present accused by the learned Trial Court, and that out of 5 witnesses cited in the charge-sheet, 3 witnesses have already been examined. 9. It further appears that the victim and the accused belong to the same locality and if the accused is enlarged on bail at this stage, the possibility of influencing/threatening/intimidating the witnesses by the accused cannot be ruled out. Mr. Barthakur, learned APP and Dr. Todi, learned Amicus Curiae have rightly pointed this out and opposed the petition on this ground. 10. Further, it appears that the trial is at the last stage and the material witnesses have already been examined. 11. Under the given facts and circumstances and also the nature and gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to allow this petition. And accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However, the learned Trial Court is requested to expedite the trial and to complete the same as soon as practicable. 12. In terms of the above, this Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant