Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010175162025 2026:GAU-AS:1719 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2549/2025 RAM SAIKIA SON OF LATE PHANIDHAR SAIKIA R/O JOYPUR, PICHALAGAON, P.S. NARAYANPUR DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM PIN-787001. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:MONISHA SAIKIA W/O DIPAK SAIKIA VILL- BISHNUPUR NO. 2 GAUBANDHAGAON P.S. NARAYANPUR DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-787057 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S A HUSSAIN, MR D J HALOI,MS D DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS B CHOUDHURY, AMICUS CURIAE (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA Page No.# 2/4 ORDER 09.02.2026 Heard Mr. DJ Haloi, learned counsel appearing for the accused-applicant. Also heard Mr. RJ Baruah, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent and Ms. B. Choudhury, learned counsel appointed as Amicus Curiae to appear on behalf of the respondent no. 2. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for granting bail to the accused-applicant, namely, Ram Saikia in connection with Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 27/2025, registered under Sections 332(c)/774/75(2) read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 read with Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, 2015. 3. An FIR was lodged on 07.04.2025 by informant, namely, Manisha Saikia, before the Officer-in-Charge, Narayanpur Police Station against the accused- applicant alleging inter alia, that on 29.03.2025 at around 12 noon, the accused- applicant, namely, Ram Saikia, Headmaster of Tramjuli Primary School, came to the house of the informant and had tea before leaving; that during her absence, the accused came to her house again, when her minor daughter, aged about 11 years, was playing at home with her friend; that the accused-applicant, held her and took her to the bedroom under the pretext of checking the room and when her friend tried to follow them inside, the accused – applicant stopped him; that the accused-applicant put his hand inside the shirt of my daughter and touched her private parts; that the accused-applicant stated that since the informant's daughter was leaving his school, let him touch her once, otherwise he won't allow to let her go; that the minor victim girl was scared to tell about the incident to the informant; however she told her friend about the incident and the same was told to her mother by her friend; that on 06.04.2025, the mother Page No.# 3/4 of the victim informed about the incident and therefore, on 07.04.2025, the informant with the help of her family members and villagers, apprehended the accused – applicant and handed over to the police by filing the FIR. On receipt of the FIR, the police registered Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 27/2025 under the aforementioned sections. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the Charge Sheet on 25.04.2025, wherein 21 witnesses were listed. 4. The learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused-applicant on 04.06.2025, under Section 332(c)/774/75(2) read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 read with Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, 2015. 5. Mr. Haloi, learned counsel appearing for the accused-applicant submits that during the trial, the prime witnesses, i.e. the informant and victim, have already been examined and since he was arrested on 08.04.2025 and has already spent more than 300 days behind the bars, he may be allowed to go on bail at this stage. He submits that since the primary witnesses have already been examined, there is no chance of influencing those witnesses by the accused-applicant. He further submits that the bail application moved earlier by the accused-applicant was rejected by this Court, as well as another bail application submitted before the learned Trial Court has also been rejected. He further submits that he has approached this Court due to the fact that the primary witnesses, i.e. the victim and the informant have already been examined before the learned Trial Court. 6. Per contra, Mr. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed bail by submitting that though the primary witnesses have been examined, there are as many as 21 witnesses were listed by the Investigating Officer in the Page No.# 4/4 Charge Sheet and most of them are yet to be examined. 7. The Trial Court Record in the instant case has been produced before this Court and the same has been perused by this Court. 8. This Court has heard the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the respective parties and have considered the materials available in the Trial Court Record. After the perusal of the Trial Court Records and having found prima facie incriminating materials against the accused-applicant in the offence so alleged in the FIR and also taking into account of the fact that many of the important witnesses are yet to be examined before the learned Trial Court, this Court is of the opinion that this is not the right stage to give the privilege of bail to the accused-applicant. 9. Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected and disposed of. Case Diary so received to be sent back. JUDGE Comparing Assistant