Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010105672026 2026:GAU-AS:9630 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1384/2026 SHRI HEMONTA BORA S/O SRI JITEN BORA, R/O VILL MOKRANG, SOCIALIST PATHER, PS GHILADHARI, DIST GOLAGHAT, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:SMT ANJALI KACHARI D/O SRHI RIKHESWAR KACHARI R/O NO 36 GHARIA BEKAJAN PS BORHOLLA PS BEKAJAN DIST JORHAT ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P J DAS, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. P DAS(AMICUS CURIAE, R2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 15.07.2026 Heard Mr. P.J. Das, learned counsel appearing for the accused-applicant. Also Page No.# 2/3 heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P., representing the State respondent as well as Ms. P. Das, learned Amicus Curiae, 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 in connection with Special (POCSO) Case No. 59/2025, pending before the court of learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Jorhat, corresponding to Borholla P.S. Case No. 11/2025, registered under Sections 363/376(3) of the IPC, read with Sections 9/10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. 3. The allegations as made in the FIR against the accused-applicant on 24.04.2025 are that the informant, the victim girl, who was 13 years old in October, 2023, was taken by the accused-applicant forcefully on the pretext of marriage and thereafter, they had physical relationship between them. It was alleged that after the aforesaid incident, they got married and started staying together. However, after some time, the accused-applicant started torturing the informant, i.e., the minor girl. On being tortured, she intimated her parents and her parents had taken her back with them. After the aforesaid incident, the instant FIR has been filed by the informant. 4. In terms of the aforesaid FIR, the police registered Borholla P.S. Case No. 11/2025, under the aforementioned sections. The accused-applicant was arrested on 26.04.2024 and since then for last 444 days, he is behind the bars. 5. The trial has proceeded in the instant case and 4 witnesses out of 10 witnesses named in the charge-sheet have already been examined. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the accused-applicant submits that since the accused-applicant is behind the bars for 444 days, his further custodial detention may not be required in the instant case. He submits that both the Page No.# 3/3 accused-applicant and the informant got married and due to some differences, the parents of the victim girl had taken the victim girl along with them. He submits that taking into account the long detention of the accused-applicant and since as many as 6 witnesses are yet to be examined, trial will take a considerable time to be concluded and therefore, he prays for bail of the accused-applicant. 7. The learned Addl. P.P., on the other hand, opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that the victim girl is a minor of 13 years when the alleged offence was committed and the trial is going on in a reasonable speed and is likely to be completed within a reasonable time. Therefore, he opposes the prayer of bail of the accused-applicant. 8. Ms. P. Das, learned Amicus Curiae has also supported the submission made by the learned Addl. P.P. 9. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and taking into account the materials available in the TCR, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the accused-applicant at this stage. 10. Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant