Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./9/2026 of Smt. Christine Lalrinpuii Vs The State of Mizoram and Anr. on 8 April 2026
GAHC030001282026 THE GAUHATI
GAHC030001282026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./9/2026
Smt. Christine Lalrinpuii
D/o James Thangliana, Tuikual South, Aizawl
VERSUS
The State of Mizoram and Anr.
Aizawl2:Smt. Lalchhanhim
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. P C Lalthangmawia Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG
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
09.04.2026
1. Heard Mr. P.C. Lalthangmawia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor for the State respondent and Mr. Benjamin Lalthlamuana, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.
2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for release of the accused on bail in connection with Criminal Trial S.C. No. 124/2025 under Section 10/12 of the POCSO Act, arising out of All Women P.S Case No. 58 of 2025.
3. The accused/applicant was arrested in connection with the aforesaid case on 01.10.2025 and she has been in custody since then.
4. The prosecution case in brief is that the present accused is alleged to have instigated the minor victim to make an allegation of sexual molestation against the boyfriend of her mother, namely, Mr. Samuel Lalrinmawia @Mus-a. The further allegation of the accused is that she had induced the victim child to engage in inappropriate act with the intent to falsely implicate the said boyfriend of the victim’s mother. It is also alleged that the accused took photograph of the private part of the victim and shown to others.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the knowledge of this Court that prior to the present case, an First Information Report(FIR) being All Women PS Case No. 34/2023, was lodged against the said boyfriend of the victim’s mother at the instance of the present accused which was registered under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. However, the same case according to the petitioner was submitted into final report which was accepted by the learned Trial Court resulting the closure of the said case on 28.05.2024.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case is counter-blast to the earlier First Information Report(FIR) and it has been lodged after an unexplained delay of about 448 days from the date of closure of the earlier case against the boyfriend of the victim’s mother.
7. It is further submitted that the accused had reported the matter to the competent authority out of concerned for the minor, she being her niece, and she has falsely been implicated due to some property dispute between the family.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner is also contended that there has been a non-compliance of Section 47 and 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as at the time of arrest, she was not communicated properly. It was only communicated to her after 15 days of her arrest and charge sheet have already been filed.
9. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed granting bail to the accused considering the nature and seriousness of the allegation made against the accused for commission of offence punishable under POCSO Act.
10. Upon consideration and submission of the learned counsel for the parties and the material on records, it appears that the accused has been in custody since 01.10.2025, for almost 6 (six) months. It is also found that upon completion of the investigation, the case has already been submitted into charge sheeted and the matter is at a trial stage, where the evidence of the prosecution witness including the mother of the victim has already been recorded. This Court also found that there appears an unexplained delay in lodging First Information Report(FIR); and the background of the circumstances in the case indicates existence of some prior dispute between the parties. Further, there is no material placed on record that if the present accused is released on bail, she is likely to abscond or tamper with the evidence.
11. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that further detention of the accused is not necessary at this stage.
12. Accordingly, this Bail Application is allowed.
13. The accused is directed to be release on bail on execution of bail bond of Rs. 30,000/-(Thirty Thousand) only, with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012, Aizawl, Mizoram and subject to the following conditions:-
1. That the accused shall appear before the Trial Court on each and every date fixed for the case.
2. That the accused shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
3. That the accused shall not directly or indirectly make an inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case including the victim, so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing the facts to the Court.
4. That the accused shall not see or meet the victim till conclusion of the Trial of the case; and
5. That the accused shall not stay in the same house where the victim’s live till the conclusion of the trial of the case.
14. With the above observation, this Bail Application stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant