GAHC010087152025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : AB/996/2025 ANIL CHANDRA NATH S/O- LATE PRIYA RAM NATH, R/O-VILLAGE- NABHETI, WARD NO.9, P.O AND P.S- MARIGAON, DISTRICT-

MARIGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782105.

VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM

2:SWAPNA BHARALI W/O- KAMALESWAR BHARALI VILLAGE- DOLOICHUBA P.S- MORIGAON DISTRICT- MORIGAON ASSAM PIN-78210 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R SARMA, MS. S D SAIKIA,N SARMAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. H A LASKAR (R-2)

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

ORDER

Date : 28.05.2025

1. Heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as Mr. H. A.

Laskar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. This application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Anil Chandra Nath, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Morigaon P.S. Case No. 352/2024 under Sections 75(2)/78(2) of BNS read with Sections 10/12 of POCSO Act, 2012.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on an earlier occasion, the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner was rejected by this Court by order dated 24.02.2025 in AB Case No. 114/2025. However, he submits that he has a new ground for approaching this Court for the second time. He submits that the informant of the case has filed an affidavit, inter alia, stating that she has no objection if the prayer of anticipatory bail is granted by this Court. He further submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are not true. In as much as his conduct was always appreciated by his colleagues and in that respect he has annexed certificate issued by the colleagues who are working in the Doloichuba High School, wherein he is stated to be of friendly behaviour and a good teacher. He further submits that in the FIR the allegation of sexual harassment on the victim by the petitioner has been levelled without specifying the date and it has only been stated in the FIR that the incident occurred four months prior to the lodging of the FIR.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that unless a specific date is given, it is very unsafe in criminal matters to convict the accused on such evidence. In support of his submission, he cites a ruling of Apex Court in the case of “Sunil –Vs- State Of Haryana” reported in “(2010) 1 SCC 742”

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary of Morigaon P.S. Case No. 352/2024 and has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that this is the second bail application filed by the petitioner in the same case when his earlier bail application has been once rejected. He submits that unless a new ground is there for approaching this Court for the second time, the second bail application should not be entertained. He further submits that though the informant has filed an affidavit not opposing the bail, however, during the investigation it has come out that it is not only the daughter of the informant who was the victim of the sexual harassment by the petitioner, there were other victims also who had suffered at the hands of the petitioner and their statements were also recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS. Hence, he opposes the grant of bail to the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, Mr. H. A. Laskar, learned counsel for the informant has submitted that though the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the FIR are true, however, the informant is not opposing the anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage.

7. The gist of accusation in this case is that the mother of the victim girl had lodged an FIR on 26.12.2024, before the Officer-in-Charge of Morigaon Police Station, inter alia, alleging that her daughter is a student of Class-X of Doloichuba High School, where the petitioner is working as the H