Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010079822026 2026:GAU-AS:10927 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1099/2026 DINESH MILI @ ARJUN MILI S/O LATE NOGEN MILI R/O NEOL GAON P.O.AND P.S. PULIBOR DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:PRADIP MILI S/O PION MILI VILL- NEOL GAON P.O. AND P.S. PULIBOR DIST. JORHAT ASSAM PIN-785006 PHONE NO. 9395837828 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A KHANIKAR, R L CHUTIA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, A GAUTAM, Amicus Curiae, R2 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 06.08.2026 Heard Mr. A. Khanikar, learned counsel for the accused; Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, being respondent No. 1; and Page No.# 2/3 Mr. A. Gautam, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. This application, under Section 483 of the BNSS, is preferred by accused, namely Dinesh Mili @ Arjun Mili, who has been languishing in jail hazot in connection with the Pulibor PS Case No. 25/2026, under Sections 64(2) (m)/115(2)/351(2)/123/140(1)/126 of the BNS, read with Sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act, for granting bail. 3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by one Nagen Mili (actual name withheld), on 27.03.2026. 3.1. The essence of allegation, made in the FIR, dated 27.03.2026, is that on 26.03.2026, at about 08:00 pm, the accused committed sexual intercourse with the victim girl, namely Smti X (name withheld), aged about 17 years, under threat and also by administering intoxicating substance to her. 4. Mr. Khanikar, learned counsel for the accused, submits that the accused was arrested on 28.03.2026 and since then he has been languishing in jail hazot for more than 4 months. Mr. Khanikar further submits that after completion of investigation, the IO has filed charge sheet against the accused and that he will appear before the learned trial court regularly and therefore, it is contended to allow this petition. 5. Per-contra, Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that the charge has been framed against the accused, under Section 64(1) of the BNS read with Section 4 of the PCOS Act, on 21.05.2026. Mr. Sarma further submits that the informant and the victim are yet to be examined and that if the accused is enlarged on bail at this stage, there is possibility of tampering the witnesses and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. Page No.# 3/3 6. On the other hand, Mr. Gautam, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, has subscribed the submission of Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. He, however, pointed it out that in the statement, under Section 183 of the BNSS, the victim and the eye witness, namely Rani Mili, have clearly implicated the accused with the offence alleged in the FIR. 7. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition as well as 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 offences are serious in nature and though charge has been framed against the accused, the material witnesses are yet to be examined and as such, apprehension, so expressed by Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. Gautam, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, cannot be ignored. 9. In that view of the matter and also in view of the nature and gravity of the offence and 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 extended to the accused. 10. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. 11. However, liberty is granted to the accused to approach the learned trial court, after examination of the informant and the victim as well as the eye witness, to grant him bail and in the event of filing such an application, the learned trial court shall consider the same in accordance with law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant