Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010131962026 2026:GAU-AS:9908 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1749/2026 SHRI AKSHAY PEGU S/O LABAN PEGU, R/O VILLAGE NO. 2 BORONG, KANAKAN CHAPORI, P.O. SIMEN CHAPORI, PIN-787061, P.S. SIMEN CHAPORI, DISTRICT DHEMAJI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SMTI DEEPA ROY W/O AMRIT ROY R/O VILLAGE NO. 2 PARBATIPUR P.O. PARBATIPUR PIN-784160 P.S. LALUK DISTRICT LAKHIMPUR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P BORDOLOI, MR K J SAIKIA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS T PARASHAR, AMICUS CURIAE R2 Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 20-07-20 26 Heard Mr. P. Bordoloi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent No.1. Also heard Ms. T. Parashar, learned counsel for the informant/respondent No.2. 2. This application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS, seeking bail of the petitioner, namely, Shri Akshay Pegu, who was arrested on 24.01.2026 in connection with Special (POCSO) Case No. 15/2026 under Sections 87/65(1) of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, arising out of Laluk P.S. Case No. 16/2026. 3. Scanned copy of the TCR has been received and perused the same. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that, the daughter of the informant aged about 14 years 6 months had eloped with the petitioner and subsequently, the victim was returned/recovered. In course of such elopement, the victim stayed with the petitioner, who established physical relationship with her. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits the trial has already commenced and the statements of the informant as well as the victim have already been recorded and having regard to the length of detention, the Page No.# 3/4 petitioner may be released on bail as he would not be able to influence the principal witnesses, whose evidences have already been recorded. 6. The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for bail on the ground that the offence is heinous in nature and the petitioner stands squarely implicated by the victim in her evidence. 7. A perusal of the TCR lends support to the submission of learned Addl. PP. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised another ground i.e., non- compliance with the provisions of Section 36 BNSS, inasmuch as no signature of any witness/family member is present on the said document. A perusal of the same available in the TCR confirms the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, a perusal of the notice issued to the family member of the petitioner under Section 48 BNSS contains the grounds of arrest and provides the requisite information as is available in the notice under Section 36 BNSS. 9. This Court by order dated 23.04.2026 passed in Bail Appln. No. 887/2026 had held the view that if the particulars regarding the date, time and place of arrest is communicated to the family members, friend or nominated person, by way of a notice under Section 48 BNSS, the purpose of Section 36 BNSS would be served. Contrary views have been expressed in decisions of Co-ordinate Benches and the matter has been referred to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for placing the same before the larger Bench. 10. In view of the aforesaid order dated 23.04.2026 passed in Bail Appln No. 887/2026, wherein, this Court has held as aforesaid, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. 11. Having regard to the above, the prayer for bail stands rejected at this Page No.# 4/4 stage. 12. With the above observations, this bail application accordingly stands dismissed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant