SRI HIRAK JYOTI DAS v. THE STATE OF ASSAM & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
In view of the above observation, the instant bail application is disposed of as rejected
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 1111. In view of the above observation, the instant bail application is disposed of as rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Judgment
SRI HIRAK JYOTI DAS S/O - SRI SATISH DAS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - BARAJARA, P.S. - NALBARI, P.O. BARAJARA, DISTRICT - NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN - 781334. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:PABITRA DAS S/O - LATE GAMBHIR DAS RESIDENCE OF DAKHINPAT P.S. - SADAR NAGAON IN THE DISTRICT OF NAGAON ASSAM PIN - 782426 Advocate for the Petitioner : A B T HAQUE, MR. B. KUMAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. SURAJIT DAS, AMICUS CURIAE Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA Date : 01.12.2025 ORDER Heard Mr. A. B. T. Haque, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-applicant. Also heard Mr. B. Sarmah, learned Addl. P.P., representing the State.
The instant application has been filed, under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, for granting bail to the accused-applicant, in connection with POCSO Case No. 254/2025, arising out of Nagaon P.S. Case No. 553/2025, registered under Sections 87/356(2) of the BNS, 2023, read with Section 67(A) of the IT Act, 2000 and added Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
The allegation as has been made in the FIR dated 12.07.2025 is that, on
10.03.2025, the minor daughter of the informant who was aged about 16 years, went missing after going to Dakhinpat H.S. School to take her exam. The victim was untraceable for some time but, later on, she was recovered from her cousin’s house at Guwahati. It was alleged that she was lured to go to Guwahati along with the accused-applicant wherein, the accused-applicant kept her with him and assaulted her physically for some time. It was alleged that the accused-applicant had circulates certain pornographic photographs of the victim using his mobile phone and circulating them via social media platforms. It was also alleged that the accused-applicant had threatened the family members of the informant by showing a pistol and subsequently, the members of the family apprehended the accused-applicant and handed him over to the police.
On receipt of the FIR, the police registered the POCSO Case No. 254/2025 under the aforementioned sections.
The learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the alleged offence is stated to have been committed on 10.03.2025 but, the FIR was lodged only on 12.07.2025. He further submits that the present accused-person is physically disabled and has been inside the jail for the last four and a half months, this Court should allow the accused- Page No.# 3/3 applicant to go on bail by taking into account the aforesaid aspect of his long detention as well as physical disability.
The learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State, on the other hand, opposes the bail stating that incriminating materials against the accused-applicant of his involvement is found in the TCR.
Mr. S. Das, learned Amicus Curiae, also supported the contention made by the learned Addl. P.P. and submits that at this stage, the accused-applicant should not be granted bail.
This Court has gone through the TCR and the materials available therein, and also heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties.
After considering the materials available in the TCR, which prima facie indicates the guilt of the accused-applicant in the instant case, this Court is of the opinion that at this stage, the accused-applicant should not be granted bail.
Operative part
In view of the above observation, the instant bail application is disposed of as rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the above observation, the instant bail application is disposed of as rejected
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 4; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — ss. 87, 356(2).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gauhati High Court, on 01 Dec 2025. The bench was ANJAN MONI KALITA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.