Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010130502026 2026:GAU-AS:12920 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1785/2026 SRI APURBA DAS S/O - GAJEN DAS, RESIDENT OF VILL SALDAH, P.S- SARTHEBARI, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781307. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE P.P ASSAM. 2:SMTI SUMITRA MEDHI W/O - LATE JITUMANI MEDHI RESIDENT OF VILL RAMPUR SARTHEBARI P.O RAMPUR DEKAPARA P.S. - SARTHEBARI DIST. - BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781307 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M KALITA, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, RUBI GOGOI, AMICUS CURIAE R2 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 07.09.2026 Heard Mr. M. Kalita, learned counsel for the accused/applicant. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Ms. R. Page No.# 2/3 Gogoi, learned Amicus Curiae for respondent No.2/informant. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, praying for bail in connection with Sarthebari P.S. Case No. 45/2026 under Section 65(1) of BNS, 2023 read with Section 6 of POCSO Act. 3. An FIR was lodged by the informant alleging that her minor daughter was raped by the accused/applicant when she went out of her house. It is alleged that the incident was not told to the informant by the minor girl due to threatening by the accused/applicant. The informant came to know about the incident when the victim girl was found to be pregnant of 7 to 8 months. 4. On the receipt of the FIR, the police registered Sarthebari P.S. Case No. 45/2026 under the aforementioned sections and, after completion of investigation, the investigating officer filed charge sheet on 10.08.2026 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Barpeta and thereafter, the cognizance is taken under Section 65(1) of BNS, 2023 read with Section 6 POCSO Act, 2012. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the accused/applicant submits that the accused/applicant has already behind the bars for 95 days and evidence is yet to be started. He submits that taking into account the detention period, the accused/applicant should be granted bail. 6. The scanned copy of TCR is made available before this Court and the same is perused. 7. After perusing of the scanned TCR and taking into account that none of the witnesses including the victim is yet to be examined, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the accused/applicant at this stage. Page No.# 3/3 8. Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant