Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 12889 (GAU)

SOLEMAN ALI v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

AB/1137/2025 · 2025-07-29

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010109472025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1137/2025 SOLEMAN ALI SON OF ABDUL BATEN , RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GUTIPARA PART VI, P.O. GUTIPARA, P.S. BILASIPARA, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , ASSAM 2:MOFIJ ALI SON OF LATE EABAD ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GUTIPARA PART VI P.S. BILASIPARA DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM MOBILE NO. 882288460 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MR M ROHMAN,MR. B HUSSAIN,MR J ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS P DAS, Amicus Curiae(R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 30-07-2025 Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. J. Islam, Page No.# 2/2 learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. This application under Section 482 of the BNSS has been filed praying for pre-arrest bail to the petitioner namely, Soleman Ali in respect of Bilasipara P.S. Case No.139/2025 under Section 118(2)/65(2) of BNSS r/w 4(2) of POCSO Act. The allegation made against the petitioner is that on the day of occurrence the accused by taking advantage of the absence of the parents of the victim entered her house and forcefully committed rape on her. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that false case has been lodged against the accused petitioner as the informant who is the uncle of the victim owes an amount of Rs.7,000/- to the accused petitioner, which he has been avoiding from paying and in this regard an altercation took place between them. On perusal of the case diary including the statement of the victim girl, who is aged 12 years before the I.O as well as the Magistrate, I find sufficient incriminating materials against the accused petitioner. Having regard to the nature of the allegation, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Consequently, the prayer for pre-arrest bail stands rejected. Anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant