Bail Appln./1206/2026 of PANKAJ DAS Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR on 9 June 2026

ORDER

Date : 10.06.2026

Heard Mr. A.B.T. Haque, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and

Ms. P. Das, learned Amicus Curiae for the informant/respondent No.2.

2. This is the second bail application preferred by the petitioner under Section 483 of the BNSS, in connection with Spl.(POCOS) Case No. 59/2025 (arising out of Halem Police Station Case No. 47/2025) under Section 332(a)/65(2) of BNS r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act, pending before the Special Judge, Biswanath Chariali.

3. This Court by an earlier order dated 23.02.2026 had rejected the BA No. 4006/2025. In the aforesaid order, it was observed as follows – “In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this bail petition is rejected at this stage. The petitioner may approach after the statements of witnesses have been recorded. The learned Amicus Curiae has taken the pain to find out the financial status of the alleged victim and her parents and have produced some documents before this Court. In view of the submissions made by the learned Amicus Curiae, this Court is of the opinion that District Legal Services Authority, Biswanath should intervene in the matter and ensure that the alleged victim and her family members and/or other witnesses, who may not be in a position to approach the Court on their own, should be assisted so that they may give their statements before the Court. A copy of this order be transmitted to the Secretary, District Legal

Services Authority, Biswanath forthwith for taking necessary action at their end. The Court appreciates the services rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae. The Registry is directed to pay the remuneration of the learned Amicus Curiae, as per Notification in this regard. The bail application is disposed of.”

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the meantime prior to filing of this present bail petition, the evidence of 4(four) prosecution witnesses have been recorded and therefore, now there is no chance of the petitioner hampering and tampering with the evidence of the prosecution. The prosecution has listed 8(eight) witnesses be produced during the trial.

5. Ms. P. Das, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No.2/informant has placed reliance on Sudha Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2021) 4 SCC 781, State of Bihar vs. Rajballav Prasad @ Rajballav Prasad Yadav @ Rajballabh Yadav, reported in (2017) 2 SCC 178 and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, reported in (2005) 2 SCC 42, to emphasis that not only the aspect of the accused hampering or tampering with the evidence of the prosecution is to be considered, other aspects have also to be taken into account. In this particular case, she has submitted that the victim is aged about 6 years, is a neighbour of the accused, and the earlier order itself reflects the pecuniary condition etc. of the victim and the family. She has submitted that in these circumstances and in the interest of justice, it may not be prudent to allow the petitioner the privilege of bail.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has place reliance a judgment of X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in 2024 INSC 909, to resist the prayer of the petitioner.

7. I have gone through the trial court record which has been received. From a cursory perusal, it does not appear that the petitioner at this stage would be entitled to privilege of bail. Accordingly, this bail petition stands rejected at this stage. JUDGE Comparing Assistant