Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010081282025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/909/2025 ALAUDDIN ALI S/O-ATOWAR ALI,R/O-VILL-CHENGA,P.S- BAHARI,DIST- BARPETA,ASSAM,PIN-781305 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G GOSWAMI, MS B DEVI,MR S SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 19.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed for the second time by the petitioners seeking anticipatory bail on apprehension of his arrest in connection with Pathsala P.S. Case No. 03/2025 under Sections 61/64 of BNS read with Sections 3(2)(a)(b)/4(2)(b)/9 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Page No.# 2/3 3. The gist of the accusation in this case is that on 18.01.2025, the victim woman herself had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of Pathsala Police Station, inter alia, alleging that about four months prior to lodging of the FIR when the husband of the victim woman was not there, both the named accused in the FIR came to her house and the present petitioner committed rape on her and also secretly recorded the video of the same. It is also stated in the FIR that the accused No. 1 by threatening the victim woman committed physical intercourse with her on many occasions. 4. On 10.01.2025, when the petitioner was committing rape on her, her husband came to her house and raised hue and cry and the victim woman has categorically implicated the petitioner in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNS. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after rejection of the earlier bail application moved by the petitioner, the co-accused, namely, Drubajyoti Choudhury has been granted bail by this Court and the petitioner is also ready to cooperate in the investigation. He also submits that the petitioner was suffering from ailment due to which he would not be capable of committing the act of which he has been accused of. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has annexed a medical report as Annexure-E which shows that the petitioner was suffering from “Left sided Grade IV varicocele” 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to co-operate in the investigation and he may be allowed to go on bail. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the present petitioner on the ground that the accusation against the present petitioner are more serious than that of the co- accused as the co-accused was not accused of rape, whereas the present petitioner Page No.# 3/3 is accused of rape. He further submits that the co-accused was granted bail after he was detained behind the bars for 48 days whereas the present petitioner has been evading the arrest. He also submits that the victim woman in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS has categorically implicated the present petitioner. 8. I have gone through the case diary which has been produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides. 9. As the accusation against the present petitioner are in addition to that which has been made against the co-accused, namely, Drubajyoti Choudhury, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petitioner does not stand at parity with the co-accused who has been granted bail and on that ground he cannot claim any favourable order under Section 482 of BNSS. 10. Moreover, as regards his incapability of committing an act which is required in an offence under Section 64 of the BNSS, the medical report of the petitioner which is annexed as Annexure- E only discloses that the petitioner is suffering from left sided Grade-IV varicocele. However, there is no medical document regarding his incapability of performing the sexual act. Moreover, in view of the incriminating materials which are available in the case diary, this Court is not inclined to consider the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner when once such a bail was earlier rejected after perusal of the case diary. 11. This bail application is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant