Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam on 3 March, 2025

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam on 3 March, 2025

Author: Manash Ranjan Pathak

Bench: Manash Ranjan Pathak

                                                                            Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010271412024




                                                                     2025:GAU-AS:2168

                            THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                              Case No. : Bail Appln./3905/2024

            GAUTAM NATH
            S/O TEJENDRA NATH
            R/O VILL AND P.O. RONGKUT BLOCK NO. 4, P.S. HOWRAGHAT
            DIST. KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM
            PIN-782481

            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM
            REP BY THE PP, ASSAM
            2:PRANAY NATH
             S/O LATE PURNA KANTA NATH
            R/O VILL- RONGKUT BLOCK NO. 4
            P.S. HOWRAGHAT
            DIST. KARBI ANGLONG
            ASSAM
            PIN-78248

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A ROSHID, MS. M R DEVI
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR A SHARMA (R-2)




                                 BEFORE
               HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK

                                         ORDER

03.03.2025
Heard Mr. A Roshid, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M P Goswami, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State. Also heard Mr. Ashim Sharma, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2/informant of the case.

Page No.# 2/5

2. The petitioner, namely, Gautam Nath, son of Tejendra Nath, resident of Rongkut
Block No. 4, P.S.-Howraghat, District-Karbi Anglong has filed this application under Section
483 BNSS, praying for his bail in Special POCSO Case No. 39/2024 arising out of
Howraghat Police Station Case No. 22/2024 under Sections 376 AB IPC read with
Section 6 of the POCSO Act, corresponding to G.R. No. 108/2024, in which he was arrested
on 01.06.2024 and is in custody since then.

3. As per the FIR dated 30.05.2024 lodged by the respondent No. 2/informant of the case
before the Uttar Barbil Outpost under the jurisdiction of Howraghat Police Station, the case is
that on 26.05.2024 the accused petitioner raped the minor daughter of the informant who
was 9 years old and studying in class-IV. It is alleged by the informant that accused
petitioner threatened the minor victim girl of dire consequences and forcefully raped her, due
to which the victim girl was bleeding from her private parts. Initially due to such threat, the
minor victim girl did not inform her parents, i.e., the informant, but as she sustained bleeding
injuries she was shown to Doctor on 29.05.2024 at Nagaon, before whom she told the whole
incident in detail. On coming to know about the said incident, the informant informed the
father of the accused petitioner about the same, who in turn told him that the matter will be
compromised by paying certain amount of money. As the minor victim girl was suffering a lot
because of her injuries in her private parts, the informant lodged the FIR accordingly.

4. On receipt of the FIR on 30.05.2024 by the authorities of Uttar Borbil Outpost, GD
Entry was made vide No. 536 dated 30.05.2024 and it was forwarded to the Howraghat
Police Station, wherein on 31.05.2024 it was registered as Howraghat P.S. Case No. 22/2024
under Sections 376 AB IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

5. Mr. Roshid, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since 01.06.2024 the
accused petitioner is languishing in jail in said Howraghat P.S. Case No. 22/2024 and in the
meanwhile the Court of learned Special Judge (POCSO), Karbi Anglong, Diphu had recorded
the evidence of numbers of prosecution witnesses including the minor victim girl and the
informant and therefore, his bail should be considered in said Special POCSO Case No.
39/2024 arising out of Howraghat P.S. Case No. 22/2024.

6. Mr. M P Goswami, learned APP, Assam has submitted that it is a heinous crime of
Page No.# 3/5

committing penetrative sexual assault on a minor girl and since the matter is pending before
the Court of learned Special Judge (POCSO), Karbi Anglong, Diphu at the stage of recording
of evidence of prosecution witnesses, bail of the petitioner should not be considered.

7. Mr. A Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/informant of the case has
submitted that the victim girl was only 9 years old and the petitioner is involved in a heinous
crime. As such, he should not be considered for his bail in said Special POCSO Case No.
39/2024 arising out of Howraghat P.S. Case No. 22/2024.

8. By order dated 06.01.2025, the Court called for the copy of the relevant case records
of Special POCSO Case No. 39/2024 along with the copy of the case diary of Howraghat P.S.
Case No. 22/2024.

9. On perusal of the records of the case, it is seen that police have seized the original
birth certificate of the minor victim girl that was issued on 06.10.2015 by the Registrar of
Birth and Death, Howraghat, Karbi Anglong which indicates that the date of birth of the
victim girl is 29.07.2015. As such, on the date of the incident in May, 2024 the victim girl was
9 years old.

10. Section 164 CrPC statement of the victim girl was recorded on 31.05.2024 by the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karbi Anglong, Diphu, in which the minor victim girl
implicated the petitioner of committing penetrative sexual assault on her. Police have also
seized the medical report of the victim girl as prior to filing of the FIR the informant had
taken the minor victim girl to the Doctor at Nagaon.

11. The medical report of the victim girl issued by the concerned Doctor at Nagaon shows
that the victim girl had multiple tears in the anal canal with redness and swallowing
indicating of being sodomized multiple times and having bleeding from her rectum.

12. Police arrested the petitioner on 01.06.2024 and produced him before the learned
Special Judge (POCSO), Karbi Anglong and on completion of the investigation of the case
submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner under Sections 376 AB IPC read with Section 6
of the POCSO Act.

13. On submission of the charge-sheet, said Howraghat P.S. Case No. 22/2024 was re-

Page No.# 4/5

numbered as Special POCSO Case No. 39/2024 and the learned Special Judge (POCSO),
Karbi Anglong on 16.07.2024 took cognizance of the offence under Sections 376 AB IPC read
with Section 6 of the POCSO Act against the petitioner and on 16.08.2024 framed charge
under Section 5 (m) of the POCSO Act punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

14. From the records of the case, it is seen that since 11.09.2024 to 03.01.2025,
prosecution of the case already adduced 7 Nos. of its witnesses out of 17 named prosecution
witnesses in the charge-sheet including the informant, the minor victim girl and the Doctor
concerned who examined the minor victim girl and that all those prosecution witnesses were
thoroughly cross-examined by the defence.

15. In her evidence before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Karbi Anglong, the minor
victim girl implicated the petitioner of committing penetrative sexual assault on her who was
about 9 years old at the time of the incident.

16. It is seen that the accused petitioner was of 32 years old, whereas the victim girl was
9 years old at the time of the incident. It is also seen that the petitioner happens to be the
maternal uncle of the minor victim girl.

17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of X -Vs.- State of Rajasthan, reported in (2024)
INSC 909 =2024 STPL 12498 SC have held that– In serious offences like rape, murder,
dacioty etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses,
the Court, be it the Trial Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail
application of an accused of the case.”

18. Their Lordships in said X -Vs.- State of Rajasthan further held that — “Over a period of
time, we have noticed two things, i.e., (i) either bail is granted after the charge is framed
and just before the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before the trial court, or (ii)
bail is granted once the recording of the oral evidence of the victim is complete by looking
into some discrepancies here or there in the deposition and thereby testing the credibility of
the victim. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct practice that the Courts
below should adopt. Once the trial commences, it should be allowed to reach to its final
conclusion which may either result in the conviction of the accused or acquittal of the
accused. The moment the High Court exercises its discretion in favour of the accused and
Page No.# 5/5

orders release of the accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the victim, it will have
its own impact on the pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence of the
victim. It is only in the event if the trial gets unduly delayed and that too for no fault on the
part of the accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on the ground
that right of the accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed .”

19. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the decisions of the
Hon’ble Apex Court, noted above, this Court found that the right of the accused petitioner to
have speedy trial has not been infringed.

20. Considering the entire aspect of the matter and for the reasons above, the bail of the
petitioner, Gautam Nath, son of Tejendra Nath, in said Special POCSO Case No. 39/2024
arising out of Howraghat P.S. Case No. 22/2024 pending before the Court of the learned
Special Judge (POCSO), Karbi Anglong, Diphu , stands rejected.

21. It is made clear that the learned Trial Court while adjudicating the said Special POCSO
Case No. 39/2024 arising out of Howraghat P.S. Case No. 22/2024 shall not be influenced by
any of the observations or findings, made hereinabove in this bail application.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant