Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010123292025 2025:GAU-AS:9216 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1296/2025 OMAR ALI S/O- LALBAHADUR, R/O- NO-4 SHYAMPUR, P.O AND P.S- SHYAMPUR, DIST - DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN-784116 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM ANR REP BY THE PP ASSAM 2:JABED ALI S/O-AINAL HOQUE R/O- NO-4 SHYAMPUR P.O AND P.S- SHYAMPUR DIST - DARRANG ASSAM PIN-78411 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR PARAM HANGKHA KONWAR, MR. J ABBAS,MS. B LASKAR,MR. SURAJIT DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ, AMICUS CURIAE,(R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 16.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. J. Abbas, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also Page No.# 2/4 heard Mr. K.K. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam as well as Mr. S. Nawaz, the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent No. 2. 2. This application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Omar Ali, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Shyampur P.S. Case No. 04/2025, under Sections 21(1)/4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 25.04.2025, the father of the victim girl had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of Shyampur police station, inter alia, alleging that the petitioner on the pretext of having a love affair and on a promise of marriage committed forceful physical relationship with the minor daughter of the informant. 4. It is also alleged that in the FIR though an assurance was given that as soon as the informant’s daughter attains the age of majority, social marriage will be performed between the petitioner and the victim girl however, the petitioner has married some other girl. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a young boy of 21 years of age and he was having romantic relationship with the victim girl and there was a consensual relationship between them. 6. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to co-operate in the investigation and considering the young age of the petitioner, he may be allowed to go on bail. Page No.# 3/4 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the victim girl would have attained the age of majority after 25 days of the alleged incident and she is a major girl now and this fact should also be considered while considering the anticipatory bail application. 8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the Case Diary of Shyampur P.S. Case No. 04/2025 and has submitted that from the materials in the Case Diary, it is clear that the victim was minor on the date of alleged offence. He further submits that the victim girl in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, 2023 has also stated that she was subjected to forceful sexual intercourse by the petitioner and a video of the act was also made and it was uploaded on the social media and therefore, he has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. 9. On the other hand, the learned Amicus Curiae Mr. S. Nawaz has also submitted that once the victim girl is found to be minor, and there are materials on record suggesting that the physical intercourse was forceful, the question of consent is irrelevant and the case would be squarely covered under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. He also opposes the grant of bail to the petitioner. 10. 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 the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Though the petitioner is also a boy of young age, however, there are sufficient incriminating materials against him in the Case Diary. The statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 183 of the BNS, 2023 is sufficient to indicate the Page No.# 4/4 complicity of the petitioner in the offence alleged in the FIR. Considering the nature of the case as well as the materials which are incriminating in nature against the petitioner, which is available in the Case Diary, this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant case is not a fit case to give the benefit of Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 to the petitioner at this stage. 11. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is accordingly rejected at this stage. 12. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant