Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010085302025 2025:GAU-AS:6139 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/935/2025 NITYANANDA HAZARIKA S/OLATE LOKESWAR HAZARIKA VILL-KUMARGAON,SENCHOWA P.O.SENCHOWA, P.S.NAGAON SADAR DIST.NAGAON, ASSAM PIN-782002 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:PUTULI BORDOLOI W/O DULU BORDOLOI VILL- RAHDHALA P.O.AND P.S.JAJORI DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN-78214 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M H AHMED, MR M RAHMAN,MOTIUR RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. O ULLAH(R-2),MD S ALI (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 16-05-2025 Page No.# 2/5 Heard Mr. B.D. Konwar, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Rahman, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lahakar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State respondent and Md. S. Ali, the learned counsel for informant/respondent no. 2. 2. This is an application u/s 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for granting pre-arrest bail to the accused petitioner in connection with Jajori P.S. Case No. 08/2025 u/s 319(2)/140(3)/64(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 R/W Section 6/17 of POCSO Act, 2012. 3. Case Diary is received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Konwar that the earlier bail application of the present petitioner was rejected by this Court vide its order dated 18.03.2025 observing that sufficient incriminating materials available against the present petitioner and by further observation that the resort was used by him as brothel and he is the owner of the said resort. From the FIR itself it is very much evident that the victim girl had prior relationship with the main accused, namely, Birochan Bordoloi and he also had forcible physical relationship with the daughter of the informant on multiple occasions. But, no such allegation of sexual assault has been brought against the present petitioner and he is apprehending arrest in connection with this case only for the fact that he is the owner of the said resort wherein the offence was alleged to have been committed by the main accused. He further submitted that though some allegations were brought by some of the witnesses that the said resort was using as a brothel but, to that effect no FIR has been lodged against the present petitioner. He is no way connected with the Page No.# 3/5 alleged offence and also at the relevant time of incident he was not present in the resort and it was managed by his Manager who may be responsible, if any such incident has happened in his resort. However, the present petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the I/O in further investigation of the case, if he is granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. 5. Mr. Lahakar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that his earlier bail application was rejected by this Court after perusal of the Case Diary and considering the incriminating materials against the present petitioner. He has brought no new ground to consider his bail application at this stage and the affidavit filed on behalf of the informant has no value in the eye of law. He further submitted that I/O has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the present accused/petitioner and hence his custodial interrogation may be necessary for the interest of further investigation. He further submitted that from the statement of the victim also it is seen that at the time of incident she also shouted for help but no one came forward to help the victim and when she was subjected to penetrative sexual assault by the co- accused. Mr. Lahakar accordingly raised objection and submitted that this is not at all fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present-petitioner. 6. The learned counsel Mr. Ali appearing on behalf of the respondent/informant submitted in this regard that the informant has no objection if the present petitioner is extended with the privilege of pre-arrest bail and affidavit has also been filed by the informant in that regard. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and also perused the Case Diary. It is a fact that his earlier bail application was rejected by this Court after perusal of the Case Diary it was also observed that Page No.# 4/5 the petitioner was using the resort as a brothel and he is also involved in similar kind of offence. It is seen that while rejecting the earlier bail application also the informant through her engaged counsel raised no objection in granting the privilege of interim bail to the present petitioner stating that he is not aware as to whether the present petitioner was present at the relevant time of incident in the said resort. As submitted by Mr. Konwar, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the mother of the victim also made statement in the FIR that her daughter had physical relationship with the accused namely Birochan Bordoloi on multiple occasions forcibly and on the day of incident also he took her to the said resort and had sexual intercourse with her forcibly. The present accused/petitioner may not be involved in the offence of sexual penetrative assault on the victim but, from the available materials in the Case Diary it is seen that he was very much aware about the fact that his resort is using as a brothel rather, he allowed the boys and girls to come to his resort and it was used as a brothel and for some other illegal activities. More so, there is no new and urgent ground to consider the bail application for the present petitioner which was earlier rejected on perusal of the case record by passing a detailed order. 8. Considering this aspect of the case, the gravity of the offence and also considering that the investigation is still under process, I do not find it a fit case to extent the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present petitioner and accordingly the same stands rejected. 9. In view of above, this Anticipatory Bail application stands disposed of. Page No.# 5/5 Case Diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant