Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010041362026 2026:GAU-AS:3788 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./610/2026 SRI AJAY CHETIA S/O- SRI NABIN CHETIA. R/O- THOWRA DOL. P.O.- RAJMAI, P.S.- DEMOW, DIST.- SIVASAGAR, ASSAM, PIN- 785672. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SMTI. NIRMALI BORGOHAIN W/O- SRI SUDIPTA BORGOHAIN. R/O- BAMRAJABARI. PO.- BAMRAJABARI P.S.- DEMOW DIST.- SIVASAGAR ASSAM PIN-785671 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H AGARWAL, P. DOLEY,J. SINGH,MRS J M KONWAR,B D KONWAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA 16.03.2026 ORDER Page No.# 2/5 Heard Mr. H. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the accused applicant and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. PP for the State of Assam. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, praying for granting bail to the accused-applicant in connection with Special Case (POCSO) No. 64/2025 (Demow P.S. Case No. 74/2025), registered under Section 75(2) of the BNS, 2023, read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012, pending before the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Sivasagar. 3. An FIR was lodged on 31.10.2025, by the mother of the victim girl before the Officer-In-Charge, Demow Police Station, alleging, inter alia, that on 29.10.2025, her daughter, a student of Class-X of Bamrajabari Higher Secondary School, has been allegedly kissed and sexually assaulted by an Assistant Teacher, namely, Shri Ajay Chetia (accused-applicant) inside the school premises under the pretext of a drama lesson which was followed by a threat not to disclose the incident. 4. On receipt of the FIR, the Police registered Demow P.S. Case No. 74/2025, under the aforementioned Sections against the accused-applicant. The accused- applicant was arrested on 01.11.2025 and he was forwarded before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Sivasagar. 5. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer had submitted the Charge-sheet being Charge-sheet No. 71/2025 dated 25.11.2025, under Sections 75(2)/351(2) of the BNS, 2023, read with Section 10 of the Page No.# 3/5 POCSO Act, 2012, before the aforesaid court of learned Special Judge (POCSO), Sivasagar. Accordingly, on 22.12.2025, the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Sivasagar, framed charges against the accused-applicant under Section 75(2) read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 6. It has been submitted that the earlier bail application of the accused applicant has been rejected by this Court on 24.02.2026 on the ground that the victim minor girl was taking her matriculation examination and release of the accused applicant at that point of time would have affected her mentally and accordingly, the performance of the victim girl in her matriculation examination. It is the contention of the learned counsel since matriculation examination is over and only one vital PW i.e. the I.O. of the case is left to be examined, at this stage, the accused applicant should be allowed to go on bail. Additionally, he submits that there are plenty of contradictions in the deposition already recorded before the Trial Court. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the learned counsel appearing for the accused applicant submits that the accused applicant should be granted bail. 8. This Court has earlier rejected the bail application of the accused applicant taking into consideration various facts including the fact of the victim girl that she was taking her matriculation examination. It is seen that trial in the instant case is going on in a reasonable good speed and it is expected that the trial would be concluded soon. In this connection, the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of X-Appellant-vs-State of Rajasthan & Anr; reported in 2024 Supreme (SC) 1106 can be relied on, wherein, the Hon’ble Page No.# 4/5 Supreme Court has specifically observed that ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused applicant. 9. In this connection Paragraph Nos. 15 & 16 are extracted hereinbelow:- “15. Over a period of time, we have noticed two thing i.e. (i) either bail is granted after the charge is framed and just before the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before the trial Court, or (ii) bail is granted once the recording of the oral evidence of the victim is complete by looking into some discrepancies here or ther in the deposition and thereby testing the credibility of the victim”. “16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a corrrect practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the terial commences, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion which may either result in the conviction of the accused or acquittal of the accused. The moment the High Court exercises its discretion in favour of the accused and orders release of the accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence of the victim. It is only in the event if the trial gets unduly delayed and that too for no fault on the part of the accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on the groiund that right of the accused to have a speedy trial Page No.# 5/5 has been infringed”. 10. Taking into account the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the stage of trial, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the accused applicant, at this stage. 11. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant