Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010269052025 2026:GAU-AS:1853 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1530/2025 THANESWAR NEOG S/O LATE GHANA NEOG VILL- 722, TENPUR ROAD, WARD NO.3, GOLAGHAT, P.S. GOLAGHAT, DIST. GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN-785621 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SMTI. SUNMONI SAIKIA W/O RAMEN SAIKIA R/O NAOSOLIA PATHAR P.S. GOLAGHAT PIN-785621 DIST. GOLAGHAT ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K MUNIR, MR. A. GAYAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. SURAJIT DAS, LEGAL AID COUNSEL (R-2) Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 11.02.2026 Heard Mr. P.K. Munir, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.K. Sharma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. S. Das, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. By this application, the petitioner have challenged the Charge Framing Order dated 13.11.2025, by which the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Golaghat, Assam in Special (P) Case No. 53/2025 framed charges against the accused petitioner under Section 61(2)/64(1)/49 of BNS read with Section 4/17 of the POCSO Act as well as Section 3(2) of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956. 3. The instant case commenced with the FIR lodged on 19.05.2025, wherein it was alleged that the daughter of the informant was not found in her rented house and when she was searched, the informant could not find her and that one Smt. Rakhi Gogoi called up the neighbour of the informant, informing that her daughter is at the house of the said Rakhi Gogoi and it was found out that the accused Nos. 1 & 2 i.e., Rakhi Gogoi and one Thino, kept the daughter of the informant in a rented house near College Tiniali and forced into illicit activity with another men. The Police, on completion of the investigation, submitted Charge-sheet on 28.07.2025 stating inter alia that the second place of occurrence was Junaki Bhawan lodge at College Tiniali, where the crime was facilitated and committed. The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, wherein she categorically stated that she was lured by Page No.# 3/5 accused No. 1, transported by one Shyamanta Bora in a vehicle and was taken to the said lodge and was subjected to coercion by the prime accused, i.e., Sh. Prosenjit Borman. The Investigating Officer found out the owner of the said Junaki Bhawan lodge and the petitioner is the owner of the same. Based on the statement of the victim, the petitioner was subsequently arrested, who, according to the Investigating Officer, had deliberately facilitated the crime by allowing the accused persons to stay in his lodge without mandatory guest verification and despite noticing that one of the woman was a minor. It was also stated in the Charge-sheet that the petitioner did not verify the identity proof, which were in clear violation of Assam Hotel and Lodge Regulations, thereby harboring the offenders and facilitating the crime. 4. Mr. P.K. Munir, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is simply the owner of the lodge and his only flaw is that he did not check the identity proofs of the accused persons. He further submits that if he has some part in the entire offence, he would not have written the names of the accused persons in the register and that he submits that the petitioner has no role in criminal conspiracy or abatement, much less any role under the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act. He also submits that the petitioner has no role in allowing the accused persons to stay in the hotel. Further, he did not verify the age of the victim girl, which was the only mistake committed by him. 5. He further placed the statement of the prosecution witnesses of Sri. Sourav Neog recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS by the Investigating Officer, in which he has stated that he being the son of the petitioner, on hearing the news, went and asked his father, who stated that that he has to see the register and on seeing the register, he saw that the names of the accused persons and the victim were written in the same. He as such submits that the Page No.# 4/5 conduct of the petitioner does not show his complicity in the offence. He has also placed the statement of Sri Dipak Boruah, who had a grocery shop near Junaki Bhawan and who stated that the accused person Sri Prosenjit Borman came to his shop and that he called the owner of the lodge and let them meet with each other. As such, the learned counsel submits that there was no conspiracy amongst the petitioner and other accused person. 6. Mr. B.K. Sharma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State submits that this is not the case for interfering with the charge framing order, inasmuch as, the victim was a minor and the petitioner being the owner of the lodge, needed to verify the documents before allowing the accused persons and the victim to stay in his lodge, nor had checked the documents of the ladies or the girls who were much minor at that juncture and that in violation of the rules and regulations, the petitioner has allowed them to stay, facilitating the offence in question. 7. Similar is the argument of Mr. S. Das, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent No. 2, who also submits about the conduct of the petitioner in not verifying the documents and allowing the offence to be committed in his lodge. 8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the records. 9. It is not disputed that the petitioner had met the accused persons, who had gone to his lodge to book rooms for the night and had allowed them both the accused persons and the victim girl to stay at his lodge without verifying the documents both related to the identity of the persons concerned as well as other documents, which would be necessary in allowing guests to stay in any hotel. Further, it is seen that the victim was a minor and her appearance itself Page No.# 5/5 would show the same. However, the petitioner did not check her documents and allowed her and the other accused persons to stay with two male persons in his lodge. It is apparent that even if it is considered that other offences are not attracted qua the petitioner, the rules and regulations meant for the hotel or lodges are applicable to him, specifically, the Assam Hotel and Lodge Regulations. 10. In view of the same, this Court does not deem it fit that any interference is called for in the Charge Framing Order dated 13.11.2025 and as such, the Court would proceed with the trial of the case. However, the Court is at liberty to frame or alter charges against the petitioner, in view of the facts narrated by the witnesses or on application being made. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant