Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./806/2026 of BANEJ UDDIN SK ALIAS TITU ROY Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR on 15 July 2026
GAHC010053302026 2026:GAU-AS:9709 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./806/2026 BANEJ UDDIN SK ALIAS TITU ROY SON OF SUKKUR ALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - BINNACHARA, P.S. FAKIRAGRAM, IN THE DISTRICTR OF KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM. VERSUS
GAHC010053302026
2026:GAU-AS:9709
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./806/2026
BANEJ UDDIN SK ALIAS TITU ROY
SON OF SUKKUR ALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - BINNACHARA, P.S.
FAKIRAGRAM, IN THE DISTRICTR OF KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM.
2:SMTI SIKHARANI SIL SARMA
WIFE OF SUKUMAR RAY
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - MOINAGURI
SHAKTI ASHRAM
P.S. FAKIRAGRAM
IN THE DISTRICTR OF KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A MONDAL, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS T PARASHAR, AMICUS CURIAE, R2
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS
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 : 16.07.2026
Heard Mr. M.A. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.
K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Ms. T. Parashar, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No.2/informant.
2. By this application has been filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraskha Sanhita, 2023, whereby the accused petitioner namely, Banej Uddin SK @ Titu Roy, has prayed for bail in connection with Special Case No. 5/2026 (arising out of Fakiragram P.S. Case No. 60/2025) u/s 74/76/73/318(4)/351(2)/294 of BNS, 2023 r/w Section 12 of POCSO Act.
3. The petitioner was arrested 26.12.2025.
4. The instant FIR lodged on 26-12-2025 by the informant with the allegation that a minor was being harassed by the accused person through phone calls and digital media, causing mental torture and blackmailing her through photographs made by AI etc. It is alleged that the girl also tried to commit suicide.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case is stated to be at the stage of trial, wherein out of the 8 witnesses listed in the charge-sheet, 6 have already been examined, including the informant and the victim girl. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since December, 2025 and pleads for his bail. It is also submitted that the testimony suffers from contradictions.
6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposing the bail, submits that trial is nearing completion and that the petitioner happens to be from the locality of the victim girl and there is a background of earlier threatening.
7. The learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No.2 submits that the victim is a minor and her statement has been consistent in her deposition as well as before the Magistrate and police. It is submitted that apart from such consistency, the victim has also implicated the petitioner.
8. The scanned TCR is available. I have perused the relevant portions, including the testimony of the informant, the victim and also her statement recorded under 164 Cr.P.C. In her statement and deposition also, the victim has stated about the threatening apart from impersonating his identity.
9. I have perused the nature of the materials revealed by the testimony of the victim. Considering that aspect as well as the fact that the trial is on the verge of completion – the bail petition stands rejected at this case and disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant