Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010112452025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1201/2025 SRI PABITRA SAIKIA S/O- KULEN SAIKIA, R.O- TARANI AMAJAGAO UNDER MERAPANI , PS GOLAGHAT ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U CHOUDHURY, K. SUMI,MR. B M CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 06.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. B. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Pabitra Saikia who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Jorhat P.S. Case No. 226/2025 under Sections 308(2)/64(1) of BNS. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 10.05.2025, the victim Page No.# 2/3 woman had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Jorhat Sadar Police Station, inter alia, alleging that when the husband of the informant was detained in jail, she got introduced with the present petitioner. It is stated in the FIR that the present petitioner told the informant that the he had good terms with many high police officials who may help her husband to get released from jail. 4. Accordingly, on 20.04.2025, the petitioner took the informant to Hotel Sweet India situated at Gar-ali on the pretext of introducing her to a high ranking police official, however, he took the advantage and established forceful physical relationship with the informant and also took obscene photographs. It is also stated in the FIR that on release of the husband of the informant she reported everything to her husband. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the FIR are not true. He submits that the bare perusal of the FIR would show that the victim woman herself went to the hotel along with the present petitioner which indicates that the relationship between them was consensual in nature. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to co-operate in the investigation and his custodial interrogation may not be necessary in this case. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the present petitioner and has produced the case diary of Jorhat P.S. Case No. 226/2025 and has submitted that in her statement recorded under Section 181 of BNSS, the victim woman had levelled specific accusations against the petitioner on oath. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for Page No.# 3/3 both sides and have gone through the materials available on record including the case diary which was produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 8. On perusal of the case diary, it appears that in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNS, the victim woman had implicated the present petitioner. 9. Considering the nature of offence alleged in this case as well as the incriminating materials available on record against the present petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant any favourable order under Section 482 of BNSS to the petitioner at this stage. 10. The prayer for anticipatory bail is, therefore, rejected. 11. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant