Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 12 December, 2025

Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010274282025

2025:GAU-AS:17283

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : Bail Appln./3993/2025

NIKHIL DEVNATH
S/O SRI ANANTA DEVNATH
R/O NA BORMURA, P.S. DHOLLA
DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

2:SMTI. DIPALI DAS
W/O SRI SUNIL DAS
R/O VILL- 1 NO. KOPAHTOLI
P.S. DHOLLA
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K GUPTA, MR. R K MAHANTA,MS M NIROLA

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS F BEGUM (R-2)

Linked Case : Bail Appln./3976/2025

DIPU CHETRY
S/O LATE BAHADUR CHETRY
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NA BORMURA
PS DHOLLA DIST TINSUKIA
ASSAM.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP BY PP ASSAM
Page No.# 2/7

2:SMTI DIPALI DAS
W/O SRI SUNIL DAS
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE 1 NO. KOPAHTOLI
PS DHOLLA
DIST TINSUKIA
ASSAM
786154
------------
Advocate for : MR. N HASAN
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR

Linked Case : Bail Appln./3743/2025

TIKARAM SUBEDI
S/O LATE TARA PRASAD SUBEDI
R/O VILL- FELAI GAON
P.S. DHOLLA
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP BY THE PP
ASSAM

2:SMTI. DIPALI DAS
W/O SRI SUNIL DAS
R/O VILL- 1 NO. KOPAHTOLI
P.S.DHOLLA
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : MR. A K GUPTA
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
Page No.# 3/7

BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
ORDER

12.12.2025 Heard Mr A K Gupta and Mr N Hasan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Also heard Mr B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State of Assam; and Mr S Banik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant/respondent No. 2.

2. These petitions praying for regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, have arisen out of POCSO Case No. 61 of 2025, under Sections 239/107/61 of the BNS, 2023, read with Sections 21 (2)/17 of the POCSO Act, 2012, pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Tinsukia.

3. The petitioners are in custody since 15.11.2025. The petitioners are teachers by profession.

4. The respondent No. 2 had lodged an FIR on 09.06.2025, claiming that her daughter aged about 13 years and studying in the school, where the petitioners served as teachers has consumed phenyl and the teachers of the school had admitted the minor child in a nursing home. Upon discharge from the hospital, the child has divulged to her mother who was the informant that one of the teachers of the LP School had dragged her into the LP School kitchen, forced her to eat intoxicating substances, and, thereafter, raped her. The perpetrator had, thereafter, threatened the child not to tell anybody about the incident and further that he would leak photos pertaining to the incident on social media. The minor child had therefore, consumed phenyl. The Dhola Police Station had, thereafter, registered a police case and investigation was initiated. During investigation, it was revealed that the petitioners in these three petitions had come to know about the commission of offence on 05.06.2025 and they had failed to report the commission of the offence. It also came to light that the three accused had pressurized the victim and Page No.# 4/7

her family members not report the incident to the Police and instead, proposed to settle the matter amicably. The accused persons had allegedly organized a meeting on 09.06.2025 at the school premises where the victim and her family members were invited to settle the matter. The accused were forwarded to the Court of learned Special Judge POCSO Tinsukia on 11.06.2025.

5. On finding that the petitioners were alleged to have committed offences under Section 239 of the BNS, 2023, and Section 21(2) of the POCSO Act, the petitioners were directed to be released. In the meanwhile, the charge sheet in the aforesaid case was submitted on 07.08.2025, vide Charge Sheet 24 of 2025. That on receipt of summons, the petitioners appeared before the learned Trial Court through their counsel on 01.11.2025, citing grounds of their absence before the Court and they were thereafter required to appear on 15.11.2025. On their appearance before the Court on 15.11.2025, the accused were taken into custody. The learned Special Judge POCSO, Tinsukia in his order dated 01.11.2025, has in regard to the petitioners herein, recorded as follows:

"4. After reviewing the bail petition alongside the case records, the Court has acknowledged the charges under sections 65(1)/351(1)/107 of the BNS, in conjunction with section 6(2) of the POCSO Act. The gravity of the alleged offences does not warrant the granting of ball at this juncture. The Investigating Officer has provided a charge sheet that presents prima facie evidence against the accused. Additionally, the other three accused appeared through their legal counsel today, submitted a petition addressing their absence, which the Court has accepted, and they are directed to appear on the subsequent date.

5. In light of these circumstances, this Court concludes that there are insufficient grounds to grant ball to the accused. Consequently, the bail petition is hereby denied due to a lack of merit."

6. In the order dated 15.11.2025, by which the petitioners herein, were taken into custody, had recorded as follows:

"4. It should be noted that the Investigating Officer (1.0.) has completed the Investigation and submitted a charge sheet against the three accused under sections 239/107/61 of the BNS Act, in conjunction with sections 21(2) and 17 of Page No.# 5/7

the POCSO Act. The learned Counsel representing the accused articulated that, at this Juncture, the custodial detention of the accused is unwarranted, given the prior finding by the Court indicating that the offences committed were bailable. Furthermore, the counsel referenced a judgment from the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahdoom Bava vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (SLP(Cri.) No. 376 of 2023), wherein bail was granted to the accused upon their appearance before the Court in response to a summons.

       ****        ****       ****       ****

       6.     In consideration of the arguments presented by     both parties, this Court has
conducted a careful and           thorough review of the charge sheet provided by the
1.0. and the case record. Notably, my predecessor             asserted that the offence under
section 21 of the          POCSO Act and section 239 of the BNS Act are         bailable and
fall within Schedule II of the BNS Act,            thereby directing the release of the three
accused. It         is critical to note, however, that this order was    rendered during the
investigative phase, and the           accused have not obtained regular bail from any
competent Court.

       7.     The allegations presented against the three 7         accused pertain to their
actions in preventing the        victim from disclosing the alleged incident to others
and encouraging the victim to refrain from attending            school, which is purportedly
linked to the victim's subsequent suicide. The seriousness and gravity of                these
allegations suggest that the charge sheet              submitted under the aforementioned
provisions holds merit. At this stage, the Court recognizes that the         charges against
the accused include abetment of           offences under section 6 of the POCSO Act and

abetment of suicide, which are both non-ballable offences that carry the potential for life Imprisonment.

       *****       *****       *****       *****      *****
                                                                                 Page No.# 6/7

      9.     In light of these considerations, the release of    the accused is not deemed
justiflable at this time.     Therefore, the applications for bail are hereby      rejected.

Dipu Chetry, Tikaram Subedi, and Nikhil Debnath are remanded to judicial custody, and an intermediate custody warrant is to be issued accordingly."

7. The petitioners are now before this Court praying for regular bail.

8. On receipt of notice, Mr S Banik has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that when the petitioners were not taken into custody on their production before the learned Special Judge POCSO, Tinsukia on 11.06.2025, they did not misutilize their freedom and liberty and had participated in the enquiry proceedings. The learned counsels for the petitioners have submitted that since now the charge sheets have been filed, there is no chance of their tampering or hampering with the evidence collected and therefore, the petitioners deserve to be enlarged on bail.

10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that although initially the petitioners were suspected to have committed offences under bailable sections, during their liberty, the respondents had acted in a manner where the victim had ended her own life. In the suicide note left by the minor victim, the victim had implicated the petitioners for preventing her from attending school and when she was not allowed to sit for the exams, she decided to end her own life. He has submitted that the petitioners do not deserve the privilege of being enlarged on bail.

11. Mr S Banik learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that not only had the petitioners restrained the victim and the family from approaching the appropriate authorities after they came to know about the victimization of their minor child the petitioners had restrained the victim from attending school and also from attending her examinations. He has submitted that the minor victim due to the action of the petitioners Page No.# 7/7

was traumatized to such an extent that she had to end her own life. The lerned counsel for the respondent No. 2 had further submitted that allowing the petitioners to be enlarged on bail would raise reasonable apprehension of their attempts to thwart the trial proceedings and also the investigation being carried out into the unfortunate premature end brought about to a girl child of barely 14 years. He has accordingly prayed that the bail petition be rejected.

12. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. We have also perused the scanned copies of the Trial Court Records relating to the case.

13. The issue relates to the allegations of the rape of a minor after having intoxicated her and of the said minor victim being approached by the petitioners not to divulge the incidents before anybody and making efforts to compromise. The resistance by the petitioners to the victim minor to her attending school and thereafter, not allowing her to appear in the examination by citing attendance problems, which led her to commit suicide forms the other part of the allegation, which allegedly occurred during the investigation of the case and prior to submission of the charge sheet.

14. The circumstances of the case do not inspire this Court to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioners herein, who are allegedly teachers of the school, in which the victim was a student.

15. The bail application is accordingly dismissed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant