Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010176492026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1981/2026 SRI NIKHIL NAG S/O KHITISH NAG, R/O VILL GORESWAR, PS GORESWAR, DIST TAMULPUR, BTAD, ASSAM, PIN 781366 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, GOVT OF ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J KALITA, MR SOHAING,AMAN ALI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 03.09.2026 Heard Mr. J. Kalita, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.P., Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Page No.# 2/3 2. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for pre-arrest bail in connection with Goreswar Police Station Case No. 48/2026 registered under Section 140(3) of BNS, 2023. The FIR in connection with which the petitioner is apprehending arrest was lodged on 19.07.2026 by the mother of the victim stating inter alia that when she and her husband was not at home, the petitioner kidnapped her 13 year old daughter and hid her in some unknown place. She also stated that when she and her husband returned from work and did not find the minor girl, they searched and could not find her daughter. She also stated that on seeing the CCTV footage attached to the market, she saw the girl being taken away. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that it was the petitioner who had handed over the girl to the informant and further submits that informant had allowed the petitioner to take their daughter during the vacation time for visiting other places. He submits the petitioner has no connection in kidnapping the girl or taking the girl without informing the parents. 4. Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, placed the statement of the victim both before the police as well as the Magistrate and the victim stated that in the absence of her parents, the petitioner came and took her and straight away took her to West Bengal. She further stated that the petitioner kept her at a particular place in West Bengal and that the wife of the petitioner brought her from the said house and handed over to her parents. She also stated that the petitioner wanted to marry her to which she did not agree. 5. Upon considerations of the submissions made by the learned Counsels for the parties and more so in view of the fact that the victim had given consistent statement before the police as well as before Magistrate that petitioner wanted to marry her and took her to West Bengal, this Court does not deem it fit to Page No.# 3/3 enlarge the petitioner on pre-arrest bail at this stage. 6. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant