Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010169822026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2293/2026 SHRI DIPAK KUMAR BORA ALIAS DIPOK KUMAR BORA SON OF- BACHARAM BORA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - BORPOOL GOHAIN TEKELA GAON, DHENUCHOCHA GAON, POLICE STATION- JORHAT, DISTRICT- JORHAT, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:JITEN HANSE SON OF DAITHOR HANSE RESIDENT OF TARADONG ANGJOK HANSE POLICE STATION- DEITHOR DISTRICT - KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN-78248 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T J MAHANTA, MR. P P DUTTA,MS. P P DAS,MS P SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. M BASUMATARY(R2),RAJU DEURI(R2) Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 07.09.2026 Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. P. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the accused-applicant. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P., representing the State respondent as well as Mr. R. Deori, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2. 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed praying for grant of regular bail to the accused-applicant in connection with POCSO Case No. 26/2026, corresponding to Deithor Police Station Case No. 02/2026, under Sections 6/10/12 of the POCSO Act, 2012, read with Section 64(1)/64(2)(f)/64(2)(m)/351(2) of BNS, 2023, read with Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. 3. An FIR was lodged before the Deithor Police Station on 07.05.2026 by one Shri Jiten Hanse, alleging, inter-alia, that his daughter, Ms. X (18 years 5 months) is a student of H.S. 2nd year at Government Model College, Deithor; that his wife, Mrs. Lalita Terangpi, is also working there as a part-time Grade-IV employee; that Mrs. Lalita Terangpi also offers her service as a house-help in the Principal's quarter, which is located within the college campus; that Ms. X also accompanies her mother to the house of the Principal to help her mother; that on certain occasions, Ms. X stays overnight in the Principal's quarter, as requested by the family, as a companion to their daughter, who is also of the same age as Ms. X; that Ms. X has recently confessed that she was sexually assaulted by the Principal; that the first instance of sexual intercourse without her consent happened in January 2025, when she was sleeping alone in a separate room given by the family; that she was a minor at that time and the offence continued at regular intervals till February 2026; that the first time when it happened, she was told not to tell her parents and friends or teachers anything about it, Page No.# 3/5 promising future employment in the college; that she was shown some pornographic videos before multiple sexual intercourses; that she also confessed that she was given contraceptive pills when she complained to the Principal that her periods were not regular for three months; that after having the pills, her health deteriorated and she had become irregular in attending her classes; that she confessed that the Principal used to threaten her that if she revealed her situation, her mother would lose her job in the college; that Ms. X has failed her H.S. Final Examination in 2026 due to mental trauma that she had been experiencing since 2025; that she shared her traumatic experiences and mental state to her parents as well as teachers. 4. On receipt of the FIR, police registered Deitor PS Case No. 02/2026, under the aforementioned sections. After completion of the investigation, police filed the charge- sheet, vide Charge-Sheet No. 03/2026, dated 04.07.2026, before the learned Special Judge, POCSO Court, Deithor, under Sections 6/10/12 of POCSO Act, read with Section 64(1) BNSS, 2023. In the aforesaid charge-sheet, police has cited as many as 32 PWs to prove its case before the trial court. During the investigation, the Investigation Officer has recorded the statements of the victim under Section 183 of BNSS, as well as recorded statements of several witnesses. After filing of the charge-sheet, the case is presently pending for hearing on charge. 5. The learned Senior Counsel, Mr. T.J. Mahanta, appearing for the accused- applicant, submits that the whole prosecution case is a concocted one and the FIR has been filed due to instigation by vested interested people only to harass and malign the accused-applicant. He submits that the accused-applicant is more than 18 years of age and proper verification of her age has not been done by the prosecution as yet. The learned senior counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the accused-applicant was detained on 07.05.2026 at about 6:30 PM. However, he was shown arrested on 08.05.2026 at about 12:05 PM by the police. And therefore, there is a clear difference between the actual time of arrest as vis-à-vis his shown time of arrest. He submits that Page No.# 4/5 this is in total violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as well as law laid down in the case of D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 1997 1 SCC 416. He submits that violation of Article 21 itself renders the whole arrest illegal and on that ground only, the accused-applicant should be granted bail. He further submits that though the accused-applicant has been arrested on 07.05.2026 and he has been behind the bars for 122 days, till date, the charge has not been framed against the accused-applicant. He submits that the birth certificate which is taken into consideration by the police to ascertain the date of birth of the victim girl, the same has been issued only in 2026. He submits that the FIR has been filed belatedly and that creates a doubt in the story made in the FIR. 6. In support of his contention that there is a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution due to his detention of more than 24 hours before his production before the Magistrate, the learned Senior Counsel has referred to the case of Sibasish Sandilya vs. State of Assam (Bail Application 1328/2026, decided by Gauhati High Court on 01.06.2026). 7. The TCR in the instant case has been received and the same is perused. 8. Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. PP, on the other hand, submits that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the accused-applicant of his involvement in the offence as alleged in the FIR. He submits that various witnesses, including his own wife, has implicated him in the offence in their statements before the police. He submits that the accused-applicant, while had to be detained for some time before his arrest due to the prevailing law and order situation at that point of time, as the public, after getting to know about the incident, had gheraoed the police station and came in large numbers. Faced with that situation, the police had to detain him for some time before arresting him. And therefore, he submits that there is no violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused-applicant. Page No.# 5/5 9. On perusal of the TCR, it is seen that the FIR was lodged on 07.05.2026 at 19:24 hours. As per the arrest memo, the accused-applicant was arrested at 12:05 PM on 08.05.2026, and he was produced before the Special Judge, POCSO, Diphu at 03:00 PM on 08.05.2026. There is some delay in production of the accused-applicant before the Special Judge, POCSO, Diphu. However, taking into account the prevailing situation at that point of time, which has been clearly mentioned in the order dated 28.07.2026 by the learned Special Judge, POCSO, Karbi Anglong, Diphu, this court is of the considered opinion that a delay of a short time will not be fatal and the same cannot be said to be in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that the aforesaid case of Sibasish (supra) referred by the learned Senior Counsel will not be of much help to the accused-applicant in the instant case. 10. This court has also gone through the Date of Birth certificate issued by the Department of Health & Family Welfare, Deithor Mini Primary Health Centre, wherein the date of birth of the victim girl has been shown as 17.11.2007. It is also seen that though the aforesaid certificate has been procured lately, due permission for delayed issuance of the certificate has been obtained before issuance of the aforesaid birth certificate. 11. This court has also perused the statements made by the witnesses, including the victim girl, before the police. 12. After taking into account the entire facts of the case and also the fact that the charge is yet to be framed and the victim girl is yet to be examined before the trial court, this court is not inclined to grant any relief to the accused-applicant at this stage. 13. Accordingly, the instant bail application is disposed of as rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant