Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010268892025 2026:GAU-AS:573 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3928/2025 JASTIN RAJ ALIAS FR JUSTIN RAJ RL SON OF LATE RAJAN, PRESENT RESIDENT OF MAR INVANIOUS PUBLIC SCHOOL, HARMUTTY, POST OFFICE - MERBIL, POLICE STATION - LALUK, DISTRICT - LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM PIN - 784160. PERMANENT RESIDENT OF THUNDUVILAKATHU VEEDU, KULANGARAKONAM MACHE, POST OFFICE - THIRUVANTHAPURAM, KERELA. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:NIBEDON TOPPO S/O LATE SANTOSH TOPP R/O VIL-BISHRAMPUR P.O. JORIGURI P.S. LALUK DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-7841 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BORA, MR. V A CHOWDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ, AMICUS CURIAE R2 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 19.01.2026 Page No.# 2/5 1. Heard Mr. A.M. Bora, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. V.A. Chowdhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam as well as Mr. S. Nawaz, the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent No. 2. 2. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023, has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Jastin Raj @ Fr Justin Raj RL, who has been detained behind the bars since 14.02.2025(for the last 340 days), in connection with Special (POCSO) Case No. 23/2025, corresponding to Laluk P.S. Case No. 85/2024 under Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The aforesaid case is presently pending at the stage of trial in the court of the learned Special Judge, (POCSO), North Lakhimpur, Lakhimpur. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that the father of the victim girl on 02.06.2024, lodged an FIR before the Officer in-Charge of Laluk P.S. inter alia, alleging that the petitioner, who is the Father/Manager of Mar Ivanios Public School has called the daughter of the informant to his room and subjected her to sexual intercourse. 4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had approached this court on an earlier occasion seeking bail. On that occasion, the prayer for bail was rejected by this court, by its order dated 22.07.2025, passed in Bail Application No. 766/2025. 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer for bail was rejected at that time mainly on the ground that three listed witnesses namely, Miss Kalpane Subha, Smt. Maryan Moya and Silvester Khalkho, who were the independent witnesses were not examined at that time Page No.# 3/5 and the court observed that there was every possibility of influencing those witnesses if the petitioner be released on bail at that time. 6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that now all those three witnesses have been examined and only official witnesses are there to be examined. 7. He further submits that there is discrepancy in the testimony if the medical evidence on record which may benefit the petitioner in the trial and hence, if he is kept behind the bars he may not be able to pursue his defend properly. He further submits that since the petitioner has already been detained behind the bars for the last 340 days. Hence, considering the prolonged incarceration and also the fact that all the independent witnesses have already been examined, he may be allowed to go on bail. He submits that the petitioner is ready to co-operate in the trial and ready to abide by any conditions which may be imposed while granting bail to him. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. B. Sarma as well as the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent No. 2 have objected to grant of bail on the ground that though the independent witnesses have been examined the fact remains that the offence involved in this case is of heinous in nature and the independent witnesses have implicated the petitioner of committing the offence as alleged in the said case. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. It appears that the petitioner after examination of the independent witnesses have moved the trial court seeking bail and on 15.11.2025, the trial court had rejected the application for bail mainly on the ground of incriminating evidence adduced Page No.# 4/5 against the petitioner as well as nature and gravity of the offence. 10. It also appears that this court while rejecting the bail of the petitioner on 22.07.2025, took into consideration that at that point of time three independent witnesses, who could have been influenced by the petitioner were not examined. However, by now all those three independent witnesses have been examined. In total six independent witnesses, including the victim and the informant have already been examined. It also appears that the only official witnesses are there to be examined by the trial court. 11. Considering the fact that all the independent witnesses have been examined as well as considering the fact that the petitioner has been detained behind the bars since last 340 days, this court is of the considered opinion that his further custodial detention may not be necessary for fair completion of the trial if he co-operates in the trial and abides by the condition imposed by this court while granting bail to him. 12. Accordingly, the above-named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), North Lakhimpur, Lakhimpur with the following conditions: i. That the petitioner shall cooperate in the trial of Special (POCSO) Case No. 23/2025, corresponding to Laluk P.S. Case No. 85/2024, which is pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), North Lakhimpur, Lakhimpur; ii. That the petitioner shall appear before the trial court as and when so required by the trial court; iii. That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, Page No.# 5/5 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 trial court in the trial pending against the present petitioner; iv. That the petitioner shall provide his contact details including photocopies of his Aadhaar Card or Driving License or PAN card, mobile number, and other contact details before the trial court; v. That the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission of the trial court and when such leave is granted by the trial court, the petitioner shall submit his leave address and contact details during such leave before the trial court; and vi. That the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. 13. With the above observation, this bail application is accordingly, disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant