Dismissed¶28

Sri Ajit Kumar Dutta v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC17 Nov 2025AB/2272/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pre-arrest bail; anticipatory bail; Section 482 BNSS 2023; Section 75(2) BNS 2023; Section 10 POCSO Act 2012; Biswanath Chariali P.S. Case No. 158/2025; Gauhati High Court; Justice Anjan Moni Kalita; AB/2272/2025; bail application rejected; prima facie involvement; case diary; habitual offender; Associate Professor; student; Internal Committee complaint; suspension; FIR dated 03.09.2025; incident dated 23.08.2025.

What did the court decide?

There are sufficient incriminating materials indicating the prima facie involvement of the accused/applicant in the instant case, and the present application for pre-arrest bail does not merit any interference at this stage. ¶27

Sri Ajit Kumar Dutta Vs the State of Assam — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Gauhati HC (2025)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010209772025

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB/2272/2025

¶5

SRI AJIT KUMAR DUTTA

¶6

SON OF LATE PADMESWAR DUTTA, R/O BAM GAON, WARD NO 4, NEAR SHIV MANDIR, P.O. AND P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI, DIST. BISWANATH, ASSAM PIN-784176

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶9

2:SMTI RUPALI DEVI WIFE OF HEMANTA DAHAL VILLAGE JAPORIGURI P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI DIST. BISWANATH ASSAM PIN-78417

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N BORAH, MR H MAZUMDER

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, D GOGOI (R-2),MR. R SARMA(R-2)

¶12

Page No.# 2/4

¶13

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA

¶14

ORDER

¶15

18.11.2025

¶16

Heard Mr. N. Borah, learned counsel for the accused/applicant. Also heard Mr. P. Barthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.

¶17

This application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/applicant in connection with Biswanath Chariali P.S. Case No. 158/2025, registered under Section 75(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶18

As per the FIR lodged on 03.09.2025, the allegation against the accused/applicant is that he, being an Associate Professor at Biswanath College, had given a lift in his car to the daughter of the informant at around 6:30 PM on 23.08.2025. During the course of the ride back to her residence, it is alleged that the accused/applicant inappropriately touched her. It is further alleged that upon reaching her house, the accused/applicant expressed a desire to teach her, and while doing so, again allegedly touched her inappropriately.

¶19

Although the alleged incident occurred on 23.08.2025, the FIR came to be lodged only on 03.09.2025, as the daughter of the informant did not disclose the incident to her parents at the relevant time. It is stated that on 02.09.2025, the victim girl addressed a written complaint to the Chairperson of the Internal Committee (Sexual Harassment Committee) of Biswanath College regarding the alleged incident, and thereafter, on 03.09.2025, the instant FIR was lodged. Upon receipt of the FIR, the police registered Biswanath Chariali P.S. Case No. 158/2025 under the aforesaid sections.

¶20

Page No.# 3/4

¶21

The learned counsel for the accused/applicant submits that the accused/applicant is a senior Professor serving at Biswanath College and is due to retire in another two years. It is submitted that pursuant to a complaint received by the college authorities, the accused/applicant has already been placed under suspension. The learned counsel contends that the accused/applicant has no involvement whatsoever in the incident alleged in the FIR. He submits that the accused/applicant, being sincere about his teaching duties, intended only to guide the victim girl academically, and on certain occasions may have scolded her in connection with her conduct in class; however, he had no mala fide intention against the victim other than academic guidance.

¶22

It is further submitted that certain SMS messages sent by the accused/applicant to the victim, relating to academic issues, were misunderstood, and one casual message wherein he mentioned that he “loved” the girl or appreciated her performance became viral, which may have created an unwarranted suspicion. Out of fear of the situation being misinterpreted, the accused/applicant has been placed in a vulnerable position. The learned counsel submits that the accused/applicant has already appeared before the investigating authority, his statement has been recorded, and he has been cooperating fully with the investigation. He therefore prays that the accused/applicant be granted the benefit of pre-arrest bail, assuring that he will continue to cooperate with the investigating agency.

¶23

Mr. P. Barthakur, learned APP for the State, on the other hand, submits that there are incriminating materials against the accused/applicant in connection with the incident alleged in the FIR. He submits that, as reflected from the case diary, the accused/applicant appears to be a habitual offender, and there are statements recorded by the police from other staff members of the same college regarding his prior conduct.

¶24

Page No.# 4/4

¶25

In view of the presence of such materials against the accused/applicant, the learned APP submits that the accused/applicant should not be granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail.

¶26

Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, has supported the arguments advanced by the learned APP.

¶27

This Court has perused the materials placed on record, including the case diary, and has heard the submissions advanced by the respective parties. Upon consideration of the same, this Court finds that there are sufficient incriminating materials indicating the prima facie involvement of the accused/applicant in the instant case. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the present application for pre-arrest bail does not merit any interference at this stage.

¶28

In view of the aforesaid findings, the bail application stands rejected and is accordingly disposed of.

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Comparing Assistant

Sri Ajit Kumar Dutta v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ajit Kumar Dutta v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chinmoy Deka and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Lukman Hakim @ Md. Lukman Ali Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Mirjan Ahmed and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Dr Sangeeta Dutta Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Sahera Khatun and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Jahirul Islam Barbhuyan Vs the State of Assam