Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010101832025 2025:GAU-AS:8081 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1081/2025 KURAN ALI @ RAJU KHAN SON OF HABIBUR RAHMAN R/O VILL- PATAKATA PART-II, P.O.BAGRIBARI P.S. GAURIPUR (ATHANI OUT POST) DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM PIN-783349 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:ASMINA BEGUM W/O SAIFUL ALI R/O DHIRENPARA ITABHATA ROAD JAN PATH NEAR SHIV MANDIR C/O ASRAF ALI P.S. FATASIL AMBARI DIST. KAMRUP (METRO) ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. SANU HUSSAIN, MR K THAKUR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR M ISLAM (R-2) Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER 18.06.2025 Heard Mr. S. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent no. 1; and Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. 2. By this application under Section 482, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [BNSS], 2023, the petitioner viz. Kuran Ali @ Raju Khan has approached this Court seeking the benefit of pre-arrest bail, apprehending his arrest, in connection with Fatasil Ambari Police Station Case no. 209/2022, registered initially under Section 366, Indian Penal Code [IPC]. Subsequently, Section 376[3], IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act have been added to Fatasil Ambari Police Station Case no. 209/2022. 3. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court on two occasions by preferring two applications, A.B. no. 3413/2022 & A.B. no. 595/2023, seeking the benefit of pre-arrest bail. The said two pre-arrest bail applications were rejected by orders, dated 16.12.2022 & dated 21.03.2023, by recording reasons for rejection and upon perusal of the materials available in the case diary, collected during the course of investigation. The present application therefore, is the third application on the part of the petitioner seeking the benefit of pre-arrest bail. 4. As the necessary details were adverted to in the previous order dated 21.03.2023 [supra], the relevant excerpts from the same are extracted hereinbelow :- 3. The First Information Report [FIR] was lodged before the Officer In-Charge, Fatasil Ambari Police Station on 24.09.2022. In the FIR, the informant has stated that her minor daughter had gone out to appear in examination at around 12.30. p.m. on 24.09.2022 and Page No.# 3/6 though the examination was over at 03.00 p.m., the minor daughter of the informant did not return to her house on that day. It is mentioned that it was learnt from different sources that the petitioner had deceitfully taken the minor daughter of the informant to some place. 4. When the earlier pre-arrest bail application was considered on 16.12.2022, this Court, after perusal of the materials in the case diary, had found the petitioner to be 28 years of age. The minor daughter of the informant, who was allegedly kidnapped, was found to be 14 years of age as her date of birth of is 14.12.2008. The Birth Certificate of the minor daughter was part of the case diary. In the case diary, the statement of the minor daughter of the informant, recorded under Section 164, CrPC, was also available. Upon perusal of the said statement recorded under Section 164, CrPC, this Court had recorded that in her statement, the minor victim had clearly implicated the petitioner. In her statement, the victim had stated that it was the petitioner, who had asked the victim to go with him and in the night following the date of kidnapping, the petitioner established physical relationship with the minor daughter against her will. The petitioner was also found out to be a married person. 4.1. The Investigating Officer [I.O.] of the case in the course of investigation, made a prayer before the learned jurisdictional court on 29.10.2022 to add the offences under Section 376[3], IPC r/w Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences [POCSO] Act, 2012 and the learned jurisdictional court after perusal of the case records and considering the grounds submitted by the I.O., had, by order dated 29.10.2022, added the offences under Section 376[3], IPC r/w Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 to Fatasil Ambari Police Station Case no. 209/2022. 5. In the instant application, the petitioner has contended that since the month of December, 2022, the petitioner has been suffering from nasal bleeding and when he consulted specialist doctor, he was advised rest. The petitioner has further averred that Page No.# 4/6 there is possibility of lung infection, as per the X-Ray report. 5. It is settled that after rejection of application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438, CrPC on merits, there is scope to file a subsequent bail application for pre-arrest bail only if there is a change in the fact situation or in law which requires earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. 6. The petitioner has approached this Court by this third application on the ground that the investigating authority after completing investigation into the case, Fatasil Ambari Police Station Case no. 209/2022, has laid down a charge-sheet vide Charge Sheet no. 223/2024 on 30.11.2024. The petitioner has averred that he has not yet received any summons from the Trial Court for appearance and therefore, he has not yet entered appearance before the Trial Court. It is, thus, clear that despite the knowledge that the Charge-Sheet has been laid, the petitioner has not appeared before the Trial Court till date. When this Court made a query about the orders passed by the Trial court, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of the certified copies of orders, has submitted that the Trial court has already taken cognizance of the offences mentioned in the Charge-Sheet and has initiated processes for appearance of the charge-sheeted accused, that is, the petitioner. Since the petitioner has annexed a copy of the Charge-Sheet dated 30.11.2024, it is evident that the petitioner has the knowledge that a charge-sheet has already been filed under Section 193, BNSS against him. 7. On perusal of the contents of the Charge-Sheet dated 30.11.2024, Annexure-B to this application, it is found that the Charge-Sheet has been filed against the petitioner finding a prima-facie case against him for the offences under Section 366 and Section 376[3], IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act. A prayer has been made in the Charge-Sheet by the Investigating Officer [I.O.] to the Trial Court to consider the accused person, that is, the petitioner as an absconder. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue has been amicably Page No.# 5/6 settled by the petitioner with the victim’s family in the meantime. 9. It is true that the benefit of pre-arrest bail can be extended in an appropriate case. As per sub-section [4] of Section 438, CrPC, the provisions of Section 438 shall not apply to any case involving the arrest of any person on accusation of having committed an offence under sub-section [3] of Section 376, IPC. Similarly, sub-section [4] of Section 482, BNSS 3023 has contained a mandate that the provision of Section 482 shall not apply to any case involving the arrest of any person on accusation of having committed an offence under Section 65, Bharatiya Naya Sanhita [BNS], 2023. 10. Section 376, IPC has provided for punishment for rape. As per sub-section [3] of Section 376, IPC, whoever, commits rape on a woman under sixteen years of age shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine, provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim, provided further that any fine imposed under this sub-section shall be paid to the victim. 11. Section 65, BNS 2023 has provided for punishment for rape in certain cases. As per Section 65[1], whoever commits rape on a woman under sixteen years of age shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life, and shall also be liable to fine, provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim, provided further that any fine imposed under this sub-section shall be paid to the victim. 12. The grounds urged as fresh ones in this third pre-arrest bail application, are found to be not merited. That apart, the accusations against the petitioner about the offence committed under Section 376[3], IPC and/or Section 65, BNS have been crystallized in the form of the Charge-Sheet dated 30.11.2024. Page No.# 6/6 13. In that view of the matter, the instant pre-arrest bail application, preferred by the petitioner for the third occasion, apart from bereft of any merit, is found to be not maintainable in law and the same deserves to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant