Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010135432025 2025:GAU-AS:9375 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1531/2025 SABED ALI AND 3 ORS S/O AROP ALI R/O VILL- CHOUTAKI PT.I, P.S. KOKRAJHAR DIST. KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM, PIN-783370 2: ROHIM ALI S/O AROP ALI R/O VILL- CHOUTAKI PT.I P.S. KOKRAJHAR DIST. KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN-783370 3: AROP ALI S/O LT. FOTU MIYA R/O VILL- CHOUTAKI PT.I P.S. KOKRAJHAR DIST. KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN-783370 4: DULALI BIBI W/O AROP ALI R/O VILL- CHOUTAKI PT.I P.S. KOKRAJHAR DIST. KOKRAJHAR ASSAM Page No.# 2/4 PIN-78337 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A ROSHID, MS. T BEGUM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 22.07.2025 Heard Mr. A. Roshid, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioners, who are apprehending arrest in connection with Kokrajhar P.S. Case No. 141/2025, under Sections 118(1)/85/62/64(2)/109/ 351(2)/3(5) of BNS, 2023. Case Diary has been received and I have perused the same. It is submitted by Mr. Roshid, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the present accused/petitioners belong to same family and they have not committed any such offence as alleged in the F.I.R. The petitioners neither demanded any Page No.# 3/4 money nor inflicted any mental and physical torture on the victim. The fact of the case is that the victim was forcing the accused/petitioner No. 1, i.e. her husband, to live separately as she was not interested to live in the joint family and when she was not successful in her attempt, she lodged the F.I.R. with some false allegations. The petitioner Nos. 1, 3 & 4, after obtaining the order of interim pre-arrest bail from this Court, had already appeared before the I.O., co- operated in the investigation and their statements under Section 183 of BNSS were also recorded. However, all the accused/petitioners, along with the petitioner No. 2, are still ready and willing to co-operate the I.O. in further investigation of this case if they are granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. Mr. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted in this regard that after obtaining the order of interim pre-arrest bail, the accused/petitioner Nos. 1, 3 & 4 had already appeared before the I.O. and their statements were also recorded by the I.O. He further submitted that from the statement made by the victim under Section 183 of BNSS, it reveals that the accused/petitioner No. 2 not only harassed the victim mentally and physically, but also made several attempt to commit rape on the victim, who is his sister-in-law. Accordingly, Mr. Sharma raised objection in granting the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner No. 2. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and also considering the nature of allegation as well as the conduct of the accused/petitioner Nos. 1, 3 & 4, I find it a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner Nos. 1, 3 & 4. Accordingly, the interim pre-arrest bail order, granted to the accused/petitioner Nos. 1, 3 & 4 vide order Page No.# 4/4 dated 27.06.2025, is hereby made absolute in the same terms and conditions. However, considering the materials available in the Case Diary, vis-à-vis the statement of the victim, the prayer for pre-arrest bail for the accused/ petitioner No. 2 is hereby rejected at this stage. In terms of above, this anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. The Case Diary be sent back. JUDGE Comparing Assistant