Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010104002026 2026:GAU-AS:8704 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1403/2026 DIPAK DAS S/O- GOLAP DAS, R/O- VILL KUMARKATA, P.S- PANIGAON, DIST- LAKHIMPUR, PIN-787001, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:ELWIN RONGPI C/O PANIGAON POLICE STATION PANIGAON NORTH LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN 787052 LAKHIMPUR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C BISWAS, MS. R DEVI,MS. K L R YANTHAN,MS. J GHOSH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. P DAS, AMICUS CURIAE R2 Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 17-06-20 26 Heard Mr. S. C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. K. Parashar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent No.1. Also heard Ms. P. Das, learned Amicus Curiae for the informant/respondent No.2. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Dipak Das in connection with Special (POCSO) Case No. 27/2026 arising out of Panigaon P.S. Case No. 10/2026 (corresponding to G.R. Case No. 156/2026) under Section 10 of the POCSO Act . 3. Scanned copy of the TCR has already been received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Biswas, learned counsel that the present petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any such offence, as alleged in the FIR. From the statement made in the FIR itself it is seen that 3-4 children were playing and in presence of their mother, the petitioner helped one of the child to put on his pant and that apart, there is no other involvement of the present petitioner in the alleged offence. Page No.# 3/5 5. The mother of the children were also reluctant to lodge any FIR, rather, they refused to lodge any FIR and it is only the informant, who lodged the FIR on the instruction Child Welfare Committee inspite of the fact that the parents/guardians of the children were reluctant to lodge any FIR against the present petitioner. 6. He further submitted that the mothers of the victim children had also filed an affidavit before the Court stating that the accused petitioner is innocent and he did nothing with the children. But that affidavit was not considered by the learned Special Judge. 7. The accused petitioner is in custody since last 61 days and the case has already been charge sheeted and hence, his further custodial detention may not be required for the purpose of trial of the case. However, he is ready and willing to contest the case by appearing before the learned Trial Court on each and every date to be fixed by the Court. 8. Mr. Parashar, learned APP raised objection and submitted that all the three victim are aged 4 to 6 years and they have implicated the petitioner as to how they were sexually assaulted by the present petitioner while giving their statements under Section 183 BNSS. He further submitted that from the case diary it is seen that initially the mothers of the victims lodged a complaint before the Child Welfare Committee and on the basis of which, the FIR was lodged and the Chairperson of Child Welfare Committee also gave his statement before the Court. 9. He further submitted that the case has already been charge sheeted on 18.04.2026. However, the charge is yet to be framed and trial is yet to be commenced. He accordingly raised objection and submitted that considering the Page No.# 4/5 nature of the offence, the accused petitioner is not entitled for bail at this stge. 10. Ms. Das, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent No.2/informant also raised vehement objection and submitted that this case is registered under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and hence, the presumption under Section 29 will be followed and that apart, the statements of the victims have already been recorded under Section 183 BNSS. She further submitted that the filing of an affidavit by the mothers of the victims otherwise also give an apprehension that there is already some influences on the mothers of the victims and hence, probability of influencing the minor victims as well as other vital witnesses of the prosecution also cannot be denied at this stage. 11. She further sub mitted that such kind of offence can be considered as a crime against the society and hence, considering all these aspect of the case his bail prayer may not be considered at this stage. 12. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and I have also perused scanned copy of the TCR specially the statements of the victims recorded under Section 183 BNSS. From the statements of the victims it reveals that the children clearly implicated the accused petitioner and described as to how he sexually assaulted three children who are hardly 4 to 5 years of age. 13. Further, the charge in the case is yet to be framed and hence, till the recording of the vital witnesses of the prosecution vis-à-vis the statements of the victim children, this Court is of the opinion that probability of influencing the witnesses or tempering with the evidences of the witnesses cannot be ruled out at this stage. 14. In view of above, this Court is of the opinion that it is not at all a fit case Page No.# 5/5 to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. 15. Accordingly, this bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant