Bail Appln./1681/2026 of RANJIT BAISHYA Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR on 15 September 2026

ORDER

16.09.2026 [1] Heard Mr. I. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam as well as Mr. S.K. Chakma, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. [2] This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Ranjit Baishya, praying for bail in connection with Sessions Special Case No. 175/2025, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge POCSO, Kamrup (Metro) under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The petitioner has been detained behind the bars since 14.06.2025. [3] The gist of the accusation in this case is that on 13.06.2025; the mother of the victim girl had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Bashistha Police Station, Kamrup (Metro), inter alia, alleging that the petitioner has been subjecting the minor daughter of the first informant to physical intercourse and also subjecting her to penetrative sexual assault in various manner. On receipt of the said FIR, Bashistha Police Station Case No. 325/2025 was registered under Sections 65(2) of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 6/10 of POCSO Act, 2012. [4] After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was laid against the present petitioner and now he is facing trial in Sessions Special Case No. 175/2025, before the Court of learned Additional

Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, POCSO under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. [5] The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been detained behind the bars for more than one year, i.e., 14.06.2025 and there are several contradictions in the testimony of witnesses, including the deposition of the victim girl. [6] He submits that the victim girl has given different version while her statement was recorded under Section 180 of BNSS as well as 183 of BNSS and while deposing as a prosecution witness before the trial court. He submits that such contradictions are likely to tilt the case in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that since last 3(three) days no prosecution witness was examined and the next date is fixed on 19th September for cross-examination of the Investigating Officer. [7] On the other hand, Mr. B. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage. He submits that there is sufficient incriminating evidence on record before the trial court and there is every likelihood that the trial pending against the petitioner would end in conviction and as such, at this stage, he is released on bail, he may evade the course of justice. He further submits that the trial is pending at the fag end and already 8 of the 10 witnesses have been examined. [8] He further submits that as the petitioner hails from the same locality releasing him at this stage would jeopardize the safety of the victim girl. [9] Mr. S.K. Chakma, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the trial is progressing at a good pace and it is pending at the fag end and as such, there is no likelihood of undue delay in culmination of trial and considering the incriminating materials available on record before the trial court, there is every possibility that the trial would end in conviction of the present petitioner. As such, he submits that releasing the petitioner on bail at this stage may jeopardize the pending trial, as there is every likelihood that the petitioner may evade the course of justice. [10] In support of his submission, he has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “X versus State of Rajasthan & Anr.” [(order dated 27.11.2024, passed in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 13378/2024]. [11] I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. I have also gone through the scanned copy of the trial court records, which was requisitioned in connection with this case.

[12] On perusal of the records, it appears that the trial court rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner on 06.01.2026 making a categorical observation that there are sufficient incriminating materials against him in the records. It also appears that the trial has fairly progressed and it is pending at the stage of cross- examination of the Investigating Officer. [13] The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are contradictions in the testimony of the victim girl given at various stages of the investigation/trial, at this stage, may not be the ground for disbelieving the prosecution story. Though the petitioner may well take up those grounds before the trial court during final hearing. [14] Considering the nature of offence involved in this case as well as the materials available on record and also considering that the victim girl is only 9(nine) years of age and she was subjected to penetrative sexual assault when she was 5(five) years of age and also considering the stage of the trial, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. [15] The trial court is instead directed to expedite the trial of the present petitioner in Special Sessions Case No. 175/2025 pending before it and bring it to its logical conclusion as early as possible. [16] With above observation, this bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant