Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010121532025 2025:GAU-AS:9191 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1290/2025 SATTAR ALI S/O LATE PIYORMON R/O DHARMASHALA PART-IV, P.O. DHARMASHALA, P.S. DHUBRI (SADAR), DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783324 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:MALEK ALI SHEIKH (INFORMANT) S/O HASSEN ALI R/O DHARMASHALA PART-IV P.O.DHARMASHALA P.S. DHUBRI (SADAR) DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-78332 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A A R KARIM, MR S RAHMAN,S A KHAN,Ms. R. R. BORAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, A R MONDAL (R2),MR A HAWARI (R2),MR. S ISLAM (R2) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 16.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. A.A.R. Karim, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam as well as Mr. S. Islam, learned counsel for the informant. 2. This application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sattar Ali, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Dhubri (Sadar) Police Station Case No. 208/2025, under Sections 126(2)/65(1)/62 of BNS r/w Section 10 of POCSO Act. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 16.04.2025, the father of the victim girl had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of Dharmashala Police Out Post, inter alia, alleging that on 10.04.2025 when the petitioner who is a teacher in Jameliya Islamiya Hajijiya Madrassa, called some of the girl students to clean the Madrassa. It is also alleged that the petitioner took the daughter of the informant to his office room and closed the door and thereafter sexually assaulted her when the daughter of the informant raised hue and cry and bite the hands of the petitioner, he released her and in the meanwhile other students also reached there and the petitioner fled away therefrom. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the FIR are not true and false accusations have been made because of the property dispute between the Page No.# 3/4 father of the informant and the petitioner. He also submitted that this FIR has been lodged after six days of the incident without any explanation for the same and he also submitted that the FIR has been concocted and the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He therefore submits that the petitioner is ready to co-operate in the investigation and therefore, prays that the privilege of pre-arrest bail may be considered to the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecution has produced the case diary of Dhubri (Sadar) Police Station Case No. 208/2025 and has submitted that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner in the case diary including the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 183 BNSS. He has also submitted that the victim is a minor girl and the petitioner is a teacher of a Madrassa and considering the nature of offence, he has vehemently opposed in granting the pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. 6. Mr. S. Islam, learned counsel for the informant has also submitted that there is no dispute regarding any property between the informant and the petitioner and he further submits that the daughter of the informant has been subjected to sexual assault and considering the nature of this case, he has vehemently opposed in granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the Case Diary which was produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 8. It appears that there is sufficient incriminating materials against Page No.# 4/4 the petitioner in the case diary including the statement of the victim girl under Section 183 BNSS. Considering the nature of the offence involved as well as the incriminating materials available in the case diary, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case to grant the interim protection to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. 9. This anticipatory bail application is accordingly disposed of. 10. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant