Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010055162026 2026:GAU-AS:8005 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./803/2026 RAM SAIKIA SON OF LATE PHANIDHAR SAIKIA,RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - JOYPUR,PICHALAGAON, P.S. NARAYANPUR,DISTRICT - LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SMTI. MANISHA SAIKIA W/O SRI DIPAK SAIKIA R/O VILL- BISHNUPUR NO. 2 GARUBANDHA P.S. NARAYANPUR DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-787033 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A CHAUDHURY, MR. D BORA,MR. N MAHAJAN,MR. P K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS N CHOUDHURY, AMICUS CURIAE R2 Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 08.06.2026 Heard Mr. B.K. Mahajan, the learned counsel appearing for the accused- applicant. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, the learned Addl. P.P., appearing for the State, as well as Ms. N. Choudhury, the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for 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)/74/65(2)/62 of the BNS, 2023, read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012, read with Section 75 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, 2015. 3. An FIR was lodged on 07/04/2025, by the informant, namely, Manisha Saikia, before the Officer-in-Charge of Narayanpur Police Station against the accused- applicant, alleging inter alia, that on 29/03/2025 at around 12:00 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 the informant's 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 girl was scared to tell about the incident to the informant; however, she told her friend about the incident, and she was told to Page No.# 3/5 her mother by her friend; that on 06/04/2025, the mother 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 him to the police after filing the FIR. 4. 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. 5. The learned trial court framed charges against the accused-applicants on 04/06/2025, under Sections 332(c)/74/65(2)/62, read with Section 10 of POCSO Act, 2012, read with Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, 2015. 6. Mr. B.K. Mahajan, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-applicant, submits that Section 65(2) and 62 are not attracted in the instant case as there is no allegation of any rape could be found from the FIR or depositions of any of the witnesses. He submits that the accused-applicant is the Headmaster of the school and he is on the verge of his retirement and is going to retire within two months' time. He submits that seven witnesses have already been examined including the vital witnesses, i.e., the victim girl, the informant, and two of the friends of the victim girl, namely, Debakrishna Borah and Tulika. He submits that since all these vital witnesses have been examined, there is no chance of any tampering of evidence or influencing any witnesses in the instant case in the event of release of the accused-applicant. He submits that the accused-applicant has already suffered a lot and spent more than 14 months inside the jail, therefore, his further custodial detention is not required in the instant case. He submits that the offenses as alleged in the FIR and the charges that have been framed against the accused-applicant, his Page No.# 4/5 maximum punishment in the event of his conviction shall not be more than 7 years. Taking into account the aforesaid aspects, he submits that the accused-applicant should be granted bail at this stage. 7. Mr. D.P. Goswami, the learned Addl. P.P., on the other hand, submits that the instant case involves sexual harassment of a minor girl by the school Headmaster himself and several witnesses are yet to be examined and therefore, he opposes the grant of bail to the accused-applicant. 8. Ms. N. Choudhury, the learned Amicus Curiae, supports the submissions made by the learned Addl. P.P., and she submits that since there is a presumption as to certain offenses under Section 29 of the POCSO Act and since many of the witnesses are yet to be examined, this court should not allow the accused-applicant to go on bail at this stage. 9. This court has considered the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the respective parties and has also gone through the TCR that has been produced before this Court. 10. It is seen that 7 of the witnesses out of the 21 witnesses named in the FIR have already been examined in the Trial Court. 11. It is also seen that how the minor girl was allegedly violated by the accused- applicant, being the Headmaster of the minor girl’s school. 12. It is also seen that the trial in the instant case is going in a reasonable speed and it is expected to be completed in few months’ time. 13. It is also seen that on earlier occasions, the accused-applicant approached this Court by filing bail applications which were rejected by this Court. 14. Taking into account the various aspects including the nature of allegation and the status of trial, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the accused-applicant at Page No.# 5/5 this stage. 15. Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant