Bail Appln./2288/2026 of SHAYMSUNDAR PAUL Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 16 August 2026

ORDER

17.08.2026 Heard Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel for the accused and Mr. P. Barthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

2. This application, under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, is preferred by the accused, namely, Shaymsundar Paul, who has been languishing in jail hajot since 29.07.2026, in connection with Barpeta Road P.S. Case No. 89/2026, registered under Sections 3/4/5/7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, 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 Prakash Choudhury, of Rastriya Bajrang Dal, on 29.07.2026. The essence of allegation against the present accused in the FIR dated 29.07.2026, is that on 28.07.2026, at about 6:45 P.M., acting on a tipoff, the member of Rastriya Bajrang Dal, Barpeta Road Committee, conducted a raid on ‘Mirror Saloon & Spa’ and found one girl inside the said shop, along with the present accused and one Jagadish Prasad. Thereafter, they reported the matter to the Barpeta Police Station and then, police arrived at the spot and recovered the victim girl, along with the two accused persons, who were involved in flesh trading.

4. Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused was arrested on 29.07.2026, and since then, he has been languishing in jail hajot. He also submits that the investigation was carried out in contravention of

Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, and that Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023, has not been complied with. 4.1 Mr. Islam further submits that though the accused was apprehended and some of the articles were recovered by Police, said Police Officer is not authorized to carry out the said investigation and as such, the arrest and seizure are not in compliance with the provision of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, and under such circumstances, he has contended to allow this petition.

5. Per contra, Mr. Barthakur, learned APP for the State respondent, has produced the case dairy before this Court. He submits that the I.O. has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the accused and that, after apprehension of the accused, a special team was constituted. He also submits that the investigation is being carried out by one DSP level officer and under such circumstances, he has contended to dismiss the petition.

6. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also gone through the case diary, with the assistance of Mr. Barthakur, learned APP for the State respondent.

7. Case diary indicates sufficient incriminating materials against the accused. Moreover, investigation is going on and if the accused is enlarged on bail at this stage, it will cause serious prejudice to the prosecution side.

8. Though, Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the accused has contended that as per Section 15 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, investigation has to be carried out by a Police Officer, not below the rank of ‘Inspector of Police’, but it appears from the case diary that the investigation is being carried out by one DSP level officer.

9. It also appears that the I.O. has complied with the provision of Section 35(3) BNSS, 2023, in substance and the submission of Mr. Islam, leaned counsel for the accused cannot be accepted in this regard.

10. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no merit in this petition. And accordingly, the same stands dismissed.

11. In terms of the above, this Bail Application stands disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant