Disposed¶39

Sri Mrinal Das v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC29 Oct 2025Bail Appln./2938/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail refused at trial stage; POCSO trial; S.87 BNS 2023; S.4 POCSO Act; S.483 BNSS 2023; custody since 14.05.2025; incomplete cross-examination of prosecutrix; further investigation pending; morphed indecent photograph; blackmail; Special (POCSO) Case No.57/2025; Silchar P.S Case No.502/2025 (GR No.872/2025); Cachar, Silchar; directions to expedite investigation and trial; Justice Pranjal Das; Gauhati High Court; 30.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted: the prayer for bail was rejected at this stage (recorded as 'anticipatory bail application stands rejected'), with directions to the I.O. to expedite further investigation and to the trial court to complete the remaining trial within a reasonable time frame; the bail application stands disposed of. ¶39

Sri Mrinal Das Vs the State of Assam and Anr. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Gauhati HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether bail should be granted at this stage to the accused petitioner (in custody since 14.05.2025) in Special (POCSO) Case No.57/2025, where the further investigation is pending and the cross-examination of the prosecutrix remains incomplete. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

Despite the length of detention of the accused (in custody since 14.05.2025), and more especially because the examination of the prosecutrix is not yet fully complete, bail may not be given at this stage.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

The Court found force in the contentions of the prosecution and the learned Amicus Curiae and deemed it prudent to refuse grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage.

¶34

Key takeaways

There is significantly incriminating material against the accused: in her statement before the learned JMFC and in her trial testimony, the prosecutrix stated that the accused made a morphed indecent photograph of her from a normal photograph, blackmailed her with it threatening to make it viral, and forced her into a relationship, with further instances of blackmailing with other photographs; the Court decided against bail in the backdrop of these materials.ratio¶33
Consequential directions considering the length of detention: the I.O shall endeavour to expeditiously complete the further investigation, and the learned trial court shall also endeavour to complete the remaining trial within a reasonable time frame.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Justice Pranjal Das), Order dated 30.10.2025, Bail Appln./2938/2025: Petition under S.483 of the BNSS, 2023 by accused Mrinal Das, in custody since 14.05.2025 in Special (POCSO) Case No.57/2025 (corresponding to Silchar P.S Case No.502/2025, GR No.872/2025, registered under S.87 of the BNS, 2023 and S.4 of the POCSO Act), at trial before the Additional Sessions Judge Cum Special Judge, POCSO, Cachar, Silchar. Several witnesses, including the M.O. and the informant-cum-victim, had been examined; after the prosecutrix's examination-in-chief, further investigation was allowed, and her cross-examination remained incomplete. On record was incriminating material that the accused made a morphed indecent photograph of the prosecutrix and blackmailed her with it, threatening to make it viral and forcing her into a relationship. Held: despite the length of detention, and more especially as the examination of the prosecutrix is not yet fully complete, bail refused at this stage; the I.O. directed to expeditiously complete the further investigation and the trial court to complete the remaining trial within a reasonable time frame. The Court did not expressly adjudicate counsel's plea (relying on State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajesh Kumar @ Munnu, 2025 INSC 331) for an adverse inference from the victim's refusal of medical examination. Bail application disposed of.

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010199602025

2025:GAU-AS:14601

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

¶5

Case No. : Bail Appln./2938/2025

¶6

SRI MRINAL DAS S/O- MONILAL DAS.

¶7

R/O- TARAPUR NEW COLONY, SILCHAR, PIN - 788003, P.S.- SILCHAR, DIST.CACHAR, ASSAM.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

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

¶10

2:SMTI. SHILPI SHIL. W/O- SRI RAJU SHIL. R/O- SRIKONA PART-I BURIKHAL P.S.- SILCHAR DIST.- CACHAR ASSAM PIN - 788026

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S D PURKAYASTHA, J P BAISHYA,MS S.S.BORA

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS B CHOUDHURY(AMICUS CURIAE, R2)

¶13

Page No.# 2/5

¶14

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS

¶15

ORDER

¶16

30.10.2025

¶17

1. Heard Mr. S.D. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. B. Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2/informant. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶18

2. This petition under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the accused petitioner, namely, Mrinal Das , who is stated to have been in custody since 14.05.2025 in connection with Special (POCSO) Case No.57/2025, which is stated to be at the stage of trial before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Cum Special Judge, POCSO, Cachar, Silchar corresponding to Silchar P.S Case No.502/2025 (GR No.872/2025) registered under Sections 87 of the BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of the POCSO Act .

¶19

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the Court through the relevant materials including the depositions of the victim. Admittedly, several witnesses have been examined including the M.O and the informant cum victim.

¶20

4. However, it appears that after the Examination-In-Chief of the prosecutrix, the I.O appeared for further investigation, which was allowed and the case is presently at the stage of awaiting the findings of the further investigation. In the meantime, the cross-examination of the prosecutrix is stated to have started but has not yet been completed.

¶21

Page No.# 3/5

¶22

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though there is an indication of seizure of the pendrive but nothing was found on the mobile phone of the accused and the pendrive was also not seized from him rather but is stated to have been allegedly seized from one of his relative of the victim.

¶23

6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that admittedly, the victim refused medical examination and therefore, an adverse inference can be drawn against her.

¶24

7. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Munnu, reported in 2025 Legal Eagle (SC) 12280: 2025 INSC 331 .

¶25

8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the examination of the victim is not yet completed and there are materials against the accused regarding blackmailing her with private photographs.

¶26

9. It is submitted by the prosecution that at this stage, bail may not be granted to the petitioner.

¶27

10. The learned Amicus Curiae, supporting the contentions of the prosecution, also submits on her own accord that the materials regarding blackmailing etc are of significant concern.

¶28

11. It is further submitted that even without the medical report due to supposed refusal of consent, there are other materials which are significantly incriminating in nature.

¶29

12. I have given my consideration to the entire matter.

¶30

Page No.# 4/5

¶31

13. The accused is stated to have been in custody since 14.05.2025.

¶32

14. The trial has progressed to some extent by way of examination of few witnesses including the prosecutrix. As already stated, in the context of further examination, her remaining crossexamination is still pending. Of course, depending on the materials returned by the further investigation, the possibility of any further examination of the existing witnesses may also remain open.

¶33

15. In her statement recorded before the learned JMFC during the investigation, the prosecutrix stated that the accused had made a morphed indecent photograph of her from a normal photograph and blackmailed her with it, threatening to make it viral and thereafter, forcing her into a relationship. She also made statements regarding further instances of blackmailing with other photographs. The said incriminating material also emerges from the testimony of the prosecutrix during the trial.

¶34

16. In the backdrop of the said materials, I find force in the contentions of the prosecution and the learned Amicus Curiae that despite the length of detention and more especially, when the examination of the prosecturix is not yet fully complete, bail may not be given. Therefore, at this stage, I deem it prudent to refuse grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶35

17. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail application stands rejected .

¶36

18. However, considering the length of detention of the accused,

¶37

Page No.# 5/5

¶38

the I.O shall endeavour to expeditiously complete the further investigation and the learned trial court shall also endeavour to complete the remaining trial within a reasonable time frame.

¶39

19. Accordingly, the bail application stands disposed of.

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

Comparing Assistant

Sri Mrinal Das v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mrinal Das v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Goutam Gogoi Vs the State of Assam

Monalisa Goswami Vs the State of Assam

Pranjal Bora Vs the State of Assam

Jahanggir Alom @ Jahangir Alom and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Bajrang Bothra and 6 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

MD Sahabul Islam Alias Shahabul Islam Alias Sahabul Islam Vs the State of Assam and Anr.