Gauhati High Court
BA/60/2026 of Nikter Tama Vs The State of AP and 2 Ors on 23 August 2026
GAHC040009852026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : BA/60/2026 Nikter Tama Son of Late Nikter Tagok, a permanent resident of Donyi Colony Itanagar, PO RK Mission, PS Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh.
GAHC040009852026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
(ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : BA/60/2026
Nikter Tama Son of Late Nikter Tagok, a permanent resident of Donyi Colony Itanagar, PO RK Mission, PS Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh.
VERSUS
The State of AP and 2 Ors
represented by the PP of AP
2:Yeri Togung
Age: 41 Occupation :
Son of Late Yeri Tali
resident of Press Colony
Papu Nallah
PO and PS Naharlagun
Papum Pare District
Arunachal Pradesh.
3:XYZ
Age: 0 Occupation :
Daughter of Shri Yeri Kenia
C/o Shri Yeri Togung
resident of Press Colony
Papu Nallah
PO and PS Naharlagun
Papum Pare District
Arunachal Pradesh
Advocate for the Petitioner : Arup Bhatttacharjee, Doli Mara,G T Sangma Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 24.08.2026
Heard Mr. Arup Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Token Ete, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh, appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1.
2. The petitioner who is stated to be the elder brother of the accused, has filed the present bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, praying for grant of bail to the accused who was arrested and facing trial in connection with POCSO Case No. 07/2019 in Itanagar Women P.S. Case No. 28/2018 under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
3. The earlier 3(three) bail applications filed by the petitioner, seeking release of the accused on bail, was rejected by the learned Special Court, POCSO Act, Yupia, on 09.06.2025,16.10.2025 and 16.06.2026, respectively, on merit. The first bail application was rejected, inter alia, on the ground that the allegations levelled against the accused is serious in nature as he is alleged to have committed forceful penetrative sexual assault on the minor child/victim on three occasions. The second bail application was rejected, inter alia, on the ground that the allegation levelled against the accused is serious and that the alleged victim comes under vulnerable witness and, the third bail application was rejected, inter alia, on the ground that examination of the PWs had already been completed and the matter was fixed for examination of the accused under Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations levelled against the accused, is false, concocted and fabricated as he has not committed any offence against the alleged victim. The learned counsel further submits that the accused has been in long incarceration under the jail custody and therefore, prays for his release to enable the accused to defend his case properly from outside the jail custody.
5. On the contrary, the learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, while opposing the bail application, submits that the allegations against the accused is for the offence under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and the allegations is that the accused has committed penetrative sexual assault upon the minor girl below 12 years of age. The another ground for objection of the bail by the learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, is that the trial in respect of the prosecution side, has already been completed and the accused has also been examined under Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023, and now, the matter is pending for examination of the defence witness which is likely to be concluded very soon.
6. Learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, further submits that there are sufficient materials against the accused and he is likely to be convicted in the case and therefore, at this stage, the release of the accused on bail, would cause serious prejudice to the prosecution case.
7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and on perusal of the trial Court record, it appears that after the examination of the prosecution witnesses, the accused has already been examined under Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023, and now, the matter has been fixed for examination of the defence witness.
8. On perusal of the evidence so far recorded, it appears that there are incriminating materials which needs to be considered by the learned trial Court during hearing. Under such circumstances, if the accused is enlarged on bail, at this stage, it would cause serious prejudice to the prosecution case.
9. In view of the above, and having regard to the nature of the allegations, the materials available on record, and the fact that the case is at the fag end of the trial, this Court is not persuaded to take a view different from the order passed by the learned Special Court rejecting the bail.
10. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner seeking bail in favour of the the accused is rejected.
11. However, the learned trial Court shall expedite the further trial of the present case and make an endeavour to conclude the trial without making delay by granting unnecessary adjournment.
12. The bail application stands disposed of in terms above.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant