Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010117742024 2025:GAU-AS:3504 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1532/2024 MAINUL HOQUE MONDAL S/O KARIM UDDIN MONDAL VILL- BIDYAPARA PART- II P.O. DHUBRI P.S. DHUBRI DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM PIN-783324 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SHAHILAL HOQUE S/O MASIBAR RAHMAN VILL- SONALUGURI P.S. SAPATGRAM DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-78333 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ, SAMIM RAHMAN,MR S A BARBHUYAN,MS SURAYA RAHMAN,MR A W AMAN,MR. SURAJIT DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MRS. M A OZAH (R-2) Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 26.03.2025 Heard Mr. A. M. Bora, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1 and Ms. M. A. Ozah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2. 2. This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner, who is apprehending arrest in connection with Sapatgram P.S. Case No. 30/2024, under Sections 120(B)/354(B)/506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 8/17 of the POCSO Act. 3. Case Diary has been received. Perused the same. Heard both sides. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, that after obtaining the order of interim pre-arrest bail on 13.06.2024, the present accused/petitioner, who is a government servant, has already appeared before the I.O. on 3 (three) occasions and thus, he is co-operating in the investigation Page No.# 3/5 of this case. Further he submitted that, during the pendency of the present anticipatory bail application, there was some development took place and both the parties, i.e. the informant and the accused, had already arrived at amicable settlement and as per his instructions, the informant has no objection if the anticipatory bail is granted to the accused/petitioner by making the interim pre- arrest bail absolute in terms of the said settlement. 5. In this context, Mr. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that from the materials available in the Case Diary, it is seen that the victim brought incriminating materials against the present petitioner while recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. However, it is a fact that the accused/petitioner had appeared before the I.O. on 3 (three) occasions, i.e. on 22.06.2024, 05.08/2024 & 15.10.2025, but the I.O. could not record his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as the accused/petitioner is not co- operating the I.O. in the investigation of the case. 6. Ms. Ozah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2, also submitted in this regard that there are prima facie materials against the present accused/petitioner and the victim also brought serious allegation against the present accused/petitioner. Accordingly, the informant also filed their bail objection against the interim order of pre-arrest bail. However, she submitted that at this stage, as per her instruction, the matter has already been amicably settled between the parties outside the Court and thus, the informant has no objection at this stage if the accused/petitioner is granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. 7. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both Page No.# 4/5 sides, I have also perused the Case Diary wherefrom it is seen that the statement of the present accused/ petitioner is not available in the Case Diary and the reasons brought by the I.O. is that the petitioner is not co-operating in the investigation and for which, his statement could not be recorded, though he appeared before the I.O. on 3 (three) occasions after obtaining the order of interim pre-arrest bail. 8. However, considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, more particularly, the fact that both the parties have arrived at amicable settlement, and further considering the other aspects of this case, I find it a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner. Accordingly, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the accused/petitioner, vide order dated 13.06.2024, is hereby made absolute with the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation of the case and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required in connection with the investigation of the aforesaid P.S. Case; and (ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. Page No.# 5/5 9. In terms of above, this anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. 10. The Case Diary be sent back. JUDGE Comparing Assistant