Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010086162026 2026:GAU-AS:9629 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1174/2026 KHONSING RONGHANG ALIAS RONGMAN RONGHANG SON OF LT. SARTHE RONGHANG RESIDENT OF RONGHIDI, P.S. HAMREN, DIST. WEST KARBI ANGLONG, 782486 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM. 2:SMTI. KUNGRI TISSOPI WIFE OF BORSI EM TOKBI RESIDENT OF VILL- SARTHE TISSO GAON P.S. HAMREN DIST. WEST KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN-782480. (PRESENTLY RESIDING AT AGRICULTURE MARKETING BIRLA DIPHU KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN- 782460 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A ATREYA, MR. J KONWAR,MS. C KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS R MEDHI(R2),MR. R BORA(R2) Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 15.07.2026 Heard Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing for the accused- applicant. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. P.P., representing the State respondent as well as Mr. R. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for grant of bail to the accused-applicant, who was arrested on 08.10.2024, in connection with POCSO Case No. 03/2025, arising out of Diphu P.S. Case No. 66/2024, registered under Section 65(2) of the BNS, 2023, read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, POCSO, Karbi Anglong, Diphu. 3. An FIR was lodged on 24.08.2024 by the informant before the Officer In- charge of Diphu Police Station, alleging, inter alia that on 22.08.2024, the accused- applicant was called to the informant’s house at night to offer prayer as a priest; that since it was midnight when the ceremony was concluded, the accused- applicant was asked by the informant’s family to stay the night there; that in the morning on 23.08.2024, the accused-applicant left the informant’s house after the breakfast; that the minor daughter of the informant started repeatedly asking the informant whether the accused-applicant would be coming back to their house again; that the informant got suspicious and on questioning her, she informed that the accused-applicant, after completion of the rituals on the last night, taking advantage of the informant and other family members being asleep, raped the minor daughter of the informant. 4. On receipt of the FIR, the police registered Diphu P.S. Case No. 66/2024, Page No.# 3/5 under the aforementioned sections and started investigation and arrested the accused-applicant on 08.10.2024. 5. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 31.12.2024, under Section 65(2) BNS, read with Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. The charge was framed by the Trial Court on 10.04.2025. 6. Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing for the accused-applicant submits that though 22 nos. of witnesses have been named in the charge-sheet, till date, none of the witnesses have been examined. He submits that the accused- applicant, after his arrest on 08.10.2024, has already spent 645 days behind the bars without the trial being started. He submits that such long delay in starting of the trial is one of the primary grounds, for which the accused-applicant should be granted bail at this stage. He submits that since 22 nos. of witnesses are yet to be examined, the trial will take considerable time and taking into account his long stay behind the bars, this Court should grant him bail on that ground alone. In addition to the aforesaid ground, he submits that while arresting the accused-applicant by the arresting authority, the mandates of Section 47 of BNSS have not been complied with by the police authorities in the instant case. Therefore, on that ground also, the accused-applicant should be granted bail at this stage, in view of the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court in various occasions. In this connection, he has referred to the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. The State of Maharashtra, reported in (2025) 11 SCR 291, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the grounds of arrest must be given to the accused-applicant at least prior to his production before the jurisdictional court. With the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel submits that the accused-applicant should be granted bail at this stage and he submits that the accused-applicant shall make himself available before the Trial Court as and when required and he will not be in default in his appearance before the Trial Court. Page No.# 4/5 7. The TCR in the instant case has been received and the same is perused. 8. Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Addl. P.P., on the other hand, submits that the minor victim is only of 12 years and the accused-applicant is an elderly person and being a priest, has committed a heinous crime. He submits that taking into account the fact that such a heinous crime has been committed by the accused-applicant, the accused-applicant should not be granted bail at this stage. 9. The learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the respondent no. 2, has also supported the submission made by the learned Addl. P.P. in the instant case. 10. This Court has heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties as well as perused the materials brought before this Court in the TCR. 11. After taking into account the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the materials available in the TCR, it is seen that there is a clear violation of the mandates of Section 47 of the BNSS in the instant case while arresting of the accused-applicant. It is also seen that there is a long delay in starting of the trial of the instant case, the accused- applicant has already spent 645 days behind the bars. It is also seen that it seems the conclusion of trial will take a considerable time because, none of the 29 witnesses have been examined yet. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and also taking into account the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred case, this Court is of the considered view that the accused-applicant should be granted bail at this stage. Accordingly, it is directed that the accused-applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with a surety of like nature to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Karbi Anglong, Diphu, subject to the following conditions: - Page No.# 5/5 1. that, the accused-applicant shall appear before the learned Trial Court as and when required during the trial of the case; 2. that, the accused-applicant shall not try to get in connection with the victim girl or her family, in any manner, during the trial of the case to influence them in any manner; 3. that, the accused-applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Investigating Authority. 4. that, the accused-applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without the prior permission of the concerned Trial Court. 13. It is seen that the trial has not proceeded in spite of framing of the charge on 10.04.2025. This Court is of the view that the Trial Court should do it’s best to start the trial at the earliest and bring the trial to a logical conclusion. 14. In view of the aforesaid directions, the instant bail application is disposed of as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant