Sri Tanka Prasad Newar vs The State Of Assam And Anr
- Court
- Gauhati High Court
- Case type
- Bail Appln.
- Decided on
- 20-03-2026
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010001462026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./88/2026
SRI TANKA PRASAD NEWAR
S/O- LATE DEB NARAYAN NEWAR.
R/O- NO.2 TOKOWPATHER, P.S.- PENGAREE, DIST.- TINSUKIA, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
2:SMT. RUBI DIHINGIA
W/O- SRI KUKHA DIHINGIA.
R/O- BRAHMAJAN NATUN GAON
P.S.- PENGAREE
DIST.- TINSUKIA.ASSAM
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. A.K. Gupta,
Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. R.J. Baruah, APP, Assam.
Ms. S. Khataniar, Amicus Curiae.
Date on which judgment was reserved : 18.03.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 20.03.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of the : NA
Page No.# 2/5
operative part of the judgment?
Whether the full judgment has been : Yes
pronounced?
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. AK Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also
heard Ms. S. Khataniar, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned APP
for the State.
2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 praying
for grant of bail to the accused/applicant in connection with Pengaree P.S. Case
No.21/2025, registered under Sections 64(2)(f)/62 of the BNS, 2023, read with
Section 10 of the POCSO Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR had
been lodged on 08.08.2025 and the petitioner was taken into custody on the
same day. The charge-sheet submitted in the case is under Sections 64(2)(f)/62
of the BNS, 2023, read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act. The learned counsel
for the petitioner has submitted that initially, while registering the FIR, the
provisions of Section 68, which carries a punishment of not less than 5 years
but which may extend to 10 years and Section 62 of the BNS, which carries a
punishment of half of the longest term of imprisonment under Section 68 and
Section 8 of the POCSO Act, which carries a punishment of not less than 3 years
but may extend to 5 years, was invoked. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that since the FIR had been instituted on the basis of allegations of
attempting to commit offences under Section 68 of the BNS and Section 8 of the
Page No.# 3/5
POCSO, the maximum punishment to which the petitioner could be held to be
liable, in case he is found guilty, would be less than 10 years since for
attempting to commit offence, the punishment has to be half of what is
provided for committing the offence itself.
4. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since
the maximum punishment which could be imposed upon the petitioner, in case
he was convicted, is less than 10 years, the time frame after which the
petitioner could pray for default bail, in case the charge-sheet is not submitted,
would be 60 days. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted
that the period of 60 days in custody had expired on 07.10.2025 and it is a
matter of record that the charge-sheet has been submitted on 29.10.2025.
Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
would have been entitled to default bail on 08.10.2025.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an application
was moved on 09.12.2025 before the learned Trial Court, praying for grant of
bail on the ground that the charge-sheet had not been submitted within the
mandatory 60 days period, however, the same was dismissed by the learned
Trial Court by the order dated 09.12.2025. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has therefore prayed before this Court to consider the circumstances
involved and has prayed that this Court would grant bail to the petitioner since
the charge sheet had not been submitted within a period of 60 days from the
date of detention of the petitioner on the ground that the detention of the
petitioner on and from 08.10.2025 has to be declared to be illegal.
Page No.# 4/5
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner
would participate in the trial and cooperate.
7. The learned APP has submitted that there is no fault in the order dated
09.12.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court since it has held that the
provisions of law invoked against the petitioner being those of Sections 64(2)
(f)/62 of the BNS, the minimum sentence being not less than 10 years, the
period available for submitting charge-sheet would be 90 days and therefore
since the charge-sheet has been submitted within a period of 90 days from the
date of the arrest, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for.
8. This Court has gone through the records received from the Trial Court and
also the submissions made by the learned counsels. This Court notices that
since the allegations against the petitioner is that he had attempted to commit
certain offences, the maximum punishment that can be imposed upon him is
half of the longest term of imprisonment for actual commission of the offence.
9. In such view of the matter, even if it is taken that the maximum
punishment for the commission of the offence under Section 64(2)(f)/62 of the
BNS, 2023, would be not less than 10 years, and even if the commission of an
attempt for such offence is made out against the petitioner, he would be liable
to be imposed a punishment of half of the aforesaid punishment, which would
be not be more than 10 years.
10. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the charge-sheet was
required to be filed in the present case within 60 days, and admittedly it has not
Page No.# 5/5
been done. In the above view of the matter, this Court is also of the opinion that
the detention of the petitioner after 07.10.2025 was illegal.
11. Accordingly, this Court finds the petitioner to be entitled for the privilege
of being granted bail. It is therefore directed that the petitioner be released on
bail in connection with POCSO Case No.67(M)/2025 pending in the Court of
learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge (POCSO), Tinsukia on
furnishing a bond of Rs. 30,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court shall be entitled to
impose such conditions upon the petitioner to ensure his participation in the trial
proceedings as may be deemed necessary. It is also further provided that during
the period of investigation, the petitioner shall not interact or communicate with
the alleged victim or other witnesses so as to affect a fair trial.
12. This Bail Application is disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
Order downloaded on 22-03-2026 12:14:12 AM