Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010027272026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./437/2026 AMARJIT BARMAN SON OF LATE NISHLU BARMAN RESIDENT OF VILL- JOYPUR, P.O. TULSHIBIL, P.S. GOSSAIGAON, DIST. KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SANJAY KR. RAY SON OF BISESWAR RAY DCPU OFFICE DEURIPARA BONGAIGOAN P.O. AND P.S. BONGAIGAON DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN-78338 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P S RAJA, MR A B DUTTA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ, Amicus Curiae for R2 Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 30.03.2026 Heard Mr. P.S. Raja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Sarfraz Nawaz, learned Amicus Curiae for respondent. 2. This application filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraskha Sanhita, 2023, the accused petitioner namely, Amarjit Barman, has prayed for bail in connection with Special (P) Case No. 31 (BGN)/2025 (corresponding to Bongaigaon P.S. Case No. 185/2024) under Section 376 (AB)/376(2)(n) (f) of IPC, r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, pending before the learned Special Judge, Bongaigaon, Assam. 3. The scanned TCR has been received. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 23.04.2025. The main contention is that the significant period of under trial detention may be considered. It is also contended that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case. 5. This is a subsequent bail application as an earlier bail petition was rejected on 24.11.2025 in BA No.3427 of 2025, as fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner has been in custody for almost a year now and that he will abide by any conditions which may imposed by this Court. 6. The scanned TCR is received. 7. The prosecution submits that the victim was aged only about 11 years at the time of the incident and the petitioner is a step father. 8. Mr. Nawaz learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent fairly submits that while the petitioner has been in under trial detention for a considerable time but as observed in the previous order rejecting the bail, perhaps the victim should be allowed to be examined considering the objective situation. I have given my consideration to the matter. Page No.# 3/3 9. It is submitted by prosecution also that the victim is not yet examined. 10. In the circumstances, this bail petition stands rejected at this stage. 11. However, the learned Trial Court has requested to endeavour to expedite the trial, especially the examination of the victim and other crucial witnesses, to the extent possible. 12. This bail petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant