Gauhati High Court
Samiran Mondal vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 23 July, 2025
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010092162025
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./1396/2025
SAMIRAN MONDAL
S/O KHAGEN MONDAL
R/O TAKAPURA, P.S.NANDIGRAM
DIST. EAST MEDINIPUR
STATE- WEST BENGAL.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.
REP BY THE PP, ASSAM
2:SANTU BAIDYA
S/O LATE SUSIL BAIDYA
R/O AMERICAN COLONY
PANDU
GUWAHATI-781012
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
3:PRIYANKA BAIDYA
D/O SANTU BAIDYA
R/O AMERICAN COLONY
PANDU
GUWAHATI-781012
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T HUSSAIN,
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR S K CHHETRY (R-2,3)
Page No.# 2/4
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
Date : 23.07.2025
1. Heard Mr. T. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as Mr. S K. Chhetry, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Samiran Mondal, who has been detained behind the bars since 27.08.2024 (for last 330 days) in connection with Session (Special) Case No. 265/2024 under Sections 363/366 of IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge (POCSO), Kamrup(M), Guwahati.
3. The gist of accusation in this case is that the petitioner is facing a trial before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Kamrup(M) in Session Special Case No. 265/2024 under the aforesaid provisions of law with an accusation that he subjected the victim girl to sexual intercourse as a result of which the victim became pregnant.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has been submitted that the petitioner has been languishing behind the bars for last 330 days. He further submits that the petitioner had married the victim girl as they were having love affair for more than one and half year years prior to the alleged incident. He further submits that in the Session Special Case No. 265/2024, trial has progressed substantially and out of seven listed prosecution witnesses in the charge-sheet, five have already been examined. The victim girl as well as the informant was also examined. He, therefore, prays for allowing the petitioner to Page No.# 3/4 go on bail by considering the progress made in the trial as well as period of detention of the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that though the victim girl has been examined, however, there are incriminating materials against the petitioner in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses who have already been examined.
6. Mr. S. K. Chhetry, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has also opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that there are sufficient materials against the petitioner in this case and the victim being a minor has also delivered a baby. He further submits that at the time of alleged offence, the age of the victim was 17 years and 6 months and presently she had attained the age of majority.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the scanned copes of the records of Session Special Case No. 265/2024.
8. Considering the fact that the trial has substantially progressed and the victim girl as well as informant has already been examined and also considering the length of detention, the petitioner has undergone till date (330 days), his further custodial detention does not appear to be necessary, if he co-operates in the trial.
9. Accordingly, the above named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Kamrup(M) with following conditions:-
Page No.# 4/4
(i) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, 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 of the case before the Investigating Officer;
(ii) That the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial;
10. This bail application is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant