Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010196962026 2026:GAU-AS:14246 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2681/2026 PRANAB BAISHYA S/O- LATE KARUNA BAISHYA, R/O- KALYANPUR, BYLAND 1, H/NO.60, P.S.- DISPUR, DIST- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENT BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:SMT SIKHA KALITA WIFE OF LACHIT KALITA RESIDENT OF H/NO. 8 NEAR MURALI APARTMENT JAPORIGOG GUWAHATI-5 P.S. - DISPUR DISTKAMRUPM ASSAM INFORMANT. PIN - 78100 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR T GOGOI, MR. G MAHANTA,D.N. DASS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. P KONWAR(R2),MD A RAHMAN(R2),MS. L WANGSA(R2),MR. R SARMA(R2) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 25.09.2026 Heard Mr. T. Gogoi, learned counsel for the accused. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1; and Ms. R.S. Deuri, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. This petition, under Section 483, BNSS, 2023 is preferred by accused, namely, Pranab Baishya, who has been languishing in jail hazot in connection with Sessions (Spl.) Case No. 116/2026, pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge POCSO, Kamrup (M), under Sections 64(1), 78, 351(3) of Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023, r/w Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, arising out of Dispur P.S. Case No. 401/2026, for grant of bail. 3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by Smti. Banti Kalita (actual name withheld) on 17.06.2026. The essence of allegation in the FIR, dated 17.06.2026, is that the daughter of the informant, namely, Smt. X (name withheld), aged 16 years is being harassed by one Pranab Baishya continuously, who happened to be her ex-boyfriend and the harassment began in the month of July, 2025, when her daughter joined a gym at Nayanpur. It is also stated that the accused allured her to have romantic relationship with him and when her daughter ended the relationship with him, he started stalking her and harassing her in all possible ways. 4. Mr. Gogoi, learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused was arrested on 21.06.2026, and since then, he has been languishing in jail hazot. Page No.# 3/4 He also submits that there was love affairs between the victim and the accused and that the accused is a young boy aged 21 years. He further submits that the investigation of the case has already been completed and charge-sheet has been submitted before the learned trial Court, and now, the trial will start and the accused has to prepare his defence. Under such circumstances, Mr. Gogoi has contended to allow this petition. 4.1. Mr. Gogoi has also referred to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Anurudh and Anr., reported in 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 29, and also a decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Raj Mahato vs. The State of NCT of Delhi, in Bail Appln. No. 3007/2025. 5. Per contra, Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the petition. He submits that at the relevant point of time, the victim was 16 years old and in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023, she has clearly implicated the accused with the offence alleged in the FIR. He further submits that the case is pending for examination of the witnesses, and if the accused is enlarged on bail at this stage, there is every possibility of influencing them, and under such circumstances, he has contended to dismiss the petition. 6. Ms. Deori, learned counsel for the informant/respondent No. 2 has adopted the submission of Mr. Sarma that the victim is indisputably minor at the time occurrence and that the case is pending for examination of witnesses, and the informant and the victim are yet to be examined and at this stage, if bail is granted, then there is likelihood of influencing them, and therefore, she has contended to dismiss this petition. Page No.# 4/4 7. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the scanned copy of the record from the learned trial Court. 8. It appears that at the relevant point of time, the age of the victim was 16 years. It also appears that in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023, she has clearly implicated the accused with the offence alleged in the FIR including the offence, under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The offence is serious in nature and the case is pending at the stage of examination of the witnesses, and that none of the material witnesses have been examined till date. In that view of the matter, the possibility of influencing the witnesses by threat and intimidation cannot be ruled out at this stage. 9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the privilege of bail can be extended to the accused, and accordingly, this bail application stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant