Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./1774/2026 of PINKU SONOWAL Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR on 2 September 2026
GAHC010133982026 2026:GAU-AS:12792 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1774/2026 PINKU SONOWAL SON OF PRADIP SONOWAL, RESIDENT OF JOKAI 2 NO BHURBHURI GAONPO JOKAI PS BARBARUAH, DISTRICT DIBRUGARH ASSAM, PIN 786003 VERSUS
GAHC010133982026
2026:GAU-AS:12792
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./1774/2026
PINKU SONOWAL
SON OF PRADIP SONOWAL, RESIDENT OF JOKAI 2 NO BHURBHURI
GAONPO JOKAI PS BARBARUAH, DISTRICT DIBRUGARH ASSAM, PIN
786003
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP BY THE PP, ASSAM
2:SMT BINA GOGOI
DAUGHTER OF LATE KULA GOGOI
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NO 2 MAHAMARI
PO AND PS BARBARUAH
DISTRICT DIBRUGARH ASSAMPIN 78600
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S B LASKAR, MS D DUTTA,MR. H A LASKAR
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. J SINGH, AMICUS CURIAE R2
B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
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
03.09.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State and learned Amicus Curiae for respondent No. 2.
2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for bail in connection with Barbaruah P.S. Case No. 24/2026 dated 26.04.2026, under Sections 64(2)(m) of the BNS, r/w Section 6 of the POCSO Act. (POCSO Case No. 51/2026) under the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dibrugarh.
3. As per the allegations made in the FIR, which was lodged by the paternal aunt of the victim, the petitioner was in a love relationship with the victim, who was aged about 16 years, and in the course of such relationship, the petitioner had established a physical relationship with her.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested on 27.04.2026, and since then has spent 129 days in custody. It is further submitted that the trial of the case has also commenced and the evidence of the informant as well as the victim has already been recorded.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned Amicus Curiae representing the informant submit that the petitioner was above 18 years of age at the time of the occurrence and established a physical relationship with the victim knowing fully well that she was below the age of consent.
6. The TCR called for have been received, and on perusal of the material available thereon, it appears to be a case of adolescent love, in the course of which a physical relationship was established between the petitioner and the victim. No element of force appears to be involved, nor is there any such allegation. Further, on perusal of the record, it appears that the informant had also sworn an affidavit stating inter alia that she has no objection to the grant of bail to the petitioner.
7. Having regard to the stage of the trial, the period of detention, and what has been discussed above, I am of the view that further detention of the petitioner in custody is not necessary.
8. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is allowed.
9. The petitioner is allowed to go on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned concerned Court, in connection with the aforesaid case, subject to the conditions that the petitioner shall regularly participate in the trial and shall not try to influence or intimidate the remaining witnesses in any manner.
10. The bail petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly. JUDGE
Comparing Assistant