Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040011872026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : BA/70/2026 Smti Sudipta Nath Wife of Pumpa Nath, resident of Chongkham III near I.B. Chongkham, PO and PS Chongkham, Namsai District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP 2:Miss XYZ Age: 0 Occupation : Daughter of Siddhartha Nath resident of Chongkham near Pali Vidhyapith School PO and PS Chongkham Namsai District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Uttam Bori, N Ngongnya,Anu Zongluju,Wanglak Wangsa,Moni Bori Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 21.08.2026 Heard Mr. Uttam Bori, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Token Ete, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh, appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1; and Ms. Preety Moyong, learned legal aid counsel, appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2/minor child. 2. The petitioner who is stated to be the wife of the accused, has filed the present bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Page No.# 2/4 (BNSS), 2023, praying for grant of bail to the accused who was arrested and facing trial in connection with Chongkham P.S. Case No. 10/2026 under Sections 74/75/76/78/79/329(4)/351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS), 2023, read with Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. 3. The earlier bail application filed by the petitioner before the learned Special Court, POCSO Act, Tezu, seeking bail for the accused, was rejected on 20.07.2026, on merit, with an observation that there is a real likelihood of the accused influencing or intimidating the victim and the witnesses, which would seriously prejudice the case of the prosecution. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all allegations levelled against the accused, are false and concocted. He further submits that the informant being the wife of the elder brother of the accused, along with her family, owes a sum of Rs. 4,40,000/- to the accused and in this regard, the accused, through his counsel, has served a legal notice demanding repayment thereof. It is only after the receipt of the said legal notice that the informant has lodged the present First Information Report (FIR) against the accused. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that there is a considerable gap between the alleged sexual assault on the minor child and lodging of the First Information Report(FIR) and thus, it is submitted that, the above facts, clearly demonstrates that the case against the accused, is false, fabricated and concocted. 6. On the contrary, the learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, while opposing the bail application, submits that the statements of the informant and the minor victim, are specific and their statements are being corroborated by the statements of the Page No.# 3/4 independent witnesses with regard to the commission of the alleged offence by the accused against the informant and the minor child. The learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, further submits that the victims are consistent in their statements and that prima facie, there is a material that the accused has been sexually harassing both the mother and the minor child for the last several months, taking advantage of his family relationship and pre-dominant position in the area to suppress disclosure. 7. The learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, also submits that the investigation has now culminated into a charge-sheet, which is pending trial before the learned Special Court, POCSO Act, Tezu. He further argues that in the circumstances, if the accused is enlarged on bail, at this stage, there is every likelihood of him influencing or intimidating the victims and witnesses, thereby causing prejudice the prosecution case. 8. The learned legal aid counsel while concurring with the submissions of the learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, submits that there is a prima facie material against the accused and since the accused is an influential person in the locality, there is likelihood of him intimidating the victims and the witnesses and subjecting them to coercion, therefore, his release on bail, at this stage, would cause serious prejudice to the prosecution case. 9. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and on perusal of the trial Court record, it appears that the informant and the minor child have remained consistent in their stand, alleging sexual assault and molestation on multiple occasions. The accused is alleged to have been seeking sexual favours from the victim and causing her emotional distress. The minor child has also alleged against the accused for inappropriate touching on two occasions, which is stated to have been witnessed by her mother/informant/victim. The last of such incidents is alleged to have taken place on 06.06.2026 involving the accused entering the informant’s residence and molesting the minor child. Although some incidents pertain Page No.# 4/4 to earlier dates, the allegations are specific and consistent and as such, prima facie, there appears to be a case against the accused. The record further reveals that the victims, the accused and the material witnesses are all residents of the same locality at Mannow. In such circumstances, as observed by the learned Special Court, there is every likelihood of the accused influencing and intimidating the victims, if he is released on bail, at this stage, which would seriously prejudice the case of the prosecution. 10. In view of the above, having regard to the nature of the allegations, the materials available on record, and the fact that there is an apprehension that there is every likelihood of the accused influencing or intimidating the victims and the witnesses in the event of his release on bail, this Court is not persuaded to take a different view from the earlier order passed by the learned Special Court regarding the bail. 11. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner seeking bail in favour of the the accused is rejected. 12. The bail application stands disposed of in terms above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant