Bail Appln./2627/2026 of DR JAYANTA PRASAD DAS Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR on 22 September 2026

ORDER

23.09.2026 Heard Mr. P.K. Deka, learned counsel for the accused. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent No.1 and Mr. J. Singh, learned amicus appearing for the respondent No.2.

2. This bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is preferred by accused, namely, Dr. Jayanta Prasad Das, who has been languishing in jail hazot since 17.06.2026, in connection with Udharbond P.S. Case No.61/2026, under Sections 96, 112, 127(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, read with Sections 4, 12, 14, 17, 18 of the POCSO Act, read with Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, read with Section 14(1)(a) of the Child & Adolescent Labour (Prohibition & Regulation), Act, 1986, for grant of bail.

3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by one Ayesha Khatun (actual name withheld), on 17.06.2026. The essence of allegation in the FIR dated 17.06.2026, is that the daughter of the informant, aged 16 years, was missing since last March, 2026 and despite best effort, she failed to trace her out. Then on 17.06.2026, she learnt that her daughter along with one Smt. Y (name withheld) and Smt. Z (name withheld), who were indulged in immoral and obscene activities in Parijat Hotel and Restaurant, situated within the jurisdiction of of Udharbond Police Station, were caught red handed by residents of Lathigram and that the owner of the hotel has been indulged in immoral trafficking and prostitution related activities and the owner of the hotel, namely, Dr. Jayanta Prasad Das had induced her child and forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with other persons and that her child was kidnapped and confined her in the Hotel for long period and forced her to illicit intercourse with other person without informing them.

4. Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the accused, submits that the accused is the owner of the hotel and he is not way involved with the offence alleged in the FIR and though the case is registered under Sections 17/4 of the POCSO Act, the same are also not applicable against him and that he is an old person of about 70 years, and all the co-accused have been granted bail and that he is ready to cooperate with the investigating agency. And therefore, he has contended to allow this application.

5. Per contra, Mr. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecution, Assam, has vehemently opposed the petition. He submits that the I.O. has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the accused and he is an influential person and if he is enlarged on bail at this stage, he may influence the witnesses and that investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has already been filed and under such circumstances, he has contended to dismiss the petition.

6. Mr. Singh, learned amicus, representing the respondent No.2, has also vehemently opposed the petition. He submits that there are sufficient materials to show complicity of the accused with the offence alleged in the FIR and under such circumstances, Mr. Singh has contended to dismiss the petition.

7. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the scanned copy of the record received from the learned Trial Court.

8. It appears that the accused was arrested on 17.06.2026 and since then he has been languishing in jail hazot. It also appears that in the meantime, the investigation has been completed and the I.O. has submitted charge-sheet against the present accused along with 4 others under Sections 96/112/124(4) of BNS, read with Sections 12/14/18 of POCSO Act, read with Sections 3/4/5/6/7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, read with Section 14(1)(a) of Child & Adolescent Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act.

9. Having perused the scanned copy of the record received from the learned Trial Court, it cannot be said that no prima facie case against the accused is made out. He appears to be the main perpetrator of the offence. It is a fact that the accused is an old person and languishing in jail hazot since 17.06.2026. But, having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence and the role of the accused in the said offences, and balancing his interest and personal liberty with that of the societal interest, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the privilege of bail can be granted to the accused and accordingly, the bail application stands dismissed.

10. Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the accused submits that all the accused in this case have been released by the learned Trial Court. But, it appears that the present accused is the kingpin and he stands in a different footing from that of the others, who have already been enlarged on bail and the present accused is not entitled to any benefit on the principle of parity. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE