Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010090242025 2025:GAU-AS:6287 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/979/2025 SOPIKUL ISLAM @ SOFIQUL HOQUE S/O-RAMJAN ALI,R/O-VILL-CHATAIMARI,P.O-SIMLABARI,P.S- LAKHIPUR,DIST-GOALPARA,ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP,ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M KHAN, MR T T MONI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 19.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. A.M. Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. 2. This application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Page No.# 2/5 Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sopikul Islam @Sofiqul Hoque, who is apprehending that he may be remanded to custody, if he appears before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara in PRC Case No. 214/2024, which has issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against him in the said case. 3. The gist of accusations in this case is that on 27.07.2018, victim woman had lodged an FIR before the In-Charge of Jaleswar Police Out-Post, inter-alia alleging that during the absence of her husband on 18.07.2018, the petitioner entered into the house of the victim woman and committed rape on her after putting her under threat. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the accusations made in the FIR are not true. He also submits that though the alleged incident occurred on 18.07.2018, however, the FIR was lodged on 27.07.2018, i.e., after a gap of 9(nine) days. He further submits that after completion of the FIR, charge sheet was laid in PRC Case No. 214/2024, showing the petitioner as an absconder in the charge sheet. 5. He also submits that the petitioner was never searched or there was no attempt on the part of the Investigating Officer to meet the petitioner during the course of the investigation. 6. He also submits that after laying of the charge sheet, the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara, had initially issued summons which he never received. 7. Later on, he issued bailable warrant of arrest and thereafter, non- bailable warrant of arrest. He submits that the petitioner is apprehension of Page No.# 3/5 appearing before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara, which is the Committal Court, as he may not be in a position to grant bail to the petitioner, even if he appears before the said Court due to the embargo of Section 480(1) (i) of the of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 8. He submits that the incident involved in this case has initially occurred 8(eight) years back in the year 2018, and the petitioner is ready to face the trial. 9. Hence, he may be allowed the protection of a favourable Order under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 10. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that in the statement under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the victim woman have categorically made implicating statements against the present petitioner. He also submits that in the charge sheet laid in this case, the petitioner has been shown as an absconder, which shows that he did not co-operate with the Investigating Officer. 11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has further submitted that as the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has issued summons and bailable warrant of arrest against the present petitioner at the first instance, it would have granted bail to the petitioner if he had complied with the processes issued by the same Court. However, the petitioner intentionally defaulted in appearing before the same Court. Hence, he submits that bail should not be granted to the petitioner. 12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and have gone through the scanned copy of the case record of Page No.# 4/5 PRC Case No. 214/2024. 13. On perusal of the records, it appears that though the incident is of the year 2018, the charge sheet was laid in the year 2023 only, showing the present petitioner as an absconder therein. 14. It also appears that though the Committal Court rightly issued summons and thereafter bailable warrant by the Trial Court at the first instance, however, it appears that even if the petitioner had appeared before the Trial Court without any protection from arrest, the same Court would have remanded the petitioner to custody due to the embargo of Section 480(1) (i) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 15. Hence, the apprehension owned by the petitioner in this case of getting detained appears to be genuine. As regards the merit of the case, though there are materials against the petitioner in the records, however, the offence alleged is of the year 2018 and sufficient delay has been committed in progress of the said case and as the petitioner is ready to face the trial, this Court is of the considered opinion that he may be granted protection under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 16. This anticipatory bail application is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara in PRC Case No. 214/2024, with a period of 10(ten) days from the date of this order and co-operate in the Trial Court. If he does so within the stipulated period of time, in the event of his arrest, in connection with the aforementioned case, the above-named petitioner shall be allowed to go on bail of Rs.30,000/- with a suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject to the conditions that:- Page No.# 5/5 i. That the petitioner shall cooperate in the trial of PRC Case No. 214/2024, which is pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara; ii. That the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as and when so required by the Trial Court; iii. That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Trial Court in the trial pending against the present petitioner; 17. With the above observation, this bail application is accordingly, disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant