SOFIUR RAHMAN ALIAS BARBABU v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
AB/1473/2025 · 2025-10-15
Pranjal Das
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 14929 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 14929 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010138302025
2025:GAU-AS:13863
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1473/2025 SOFIUR RAHMAN ALIAS BARBABU S/O JOHIRUL ISLAM R/O VILL- CHAPGARH PART-I, P.S. GAURIPUR, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:MOSTAFIZUR RAHMAN S/O MOFIZUDDIN HOQUE R/O VILL- TIAMARI PART-II P.S. AND P.O. GAURIPUR DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783331 Advocate for the Petitioner : E HUSSAIN, MR. A RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. A PHUKAN(AMICUS CURIAE), (R-2)
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 16.10.2025 Heard Mr. A.Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
Page No.# 2/2
2. This petition under Section 482 BNSS is filed by the petitioner, namely, Sofiur Rahman @ Barbabu, apprehending arrest in connection with Gauripur P.S. Case No. 262/2025 u/s 303(2) and added Section 329(4)/74/79 of BNS, R/W Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2023.
3. The case arouse out an FIR dated 12.06.2024, that the incident is stated taken place to the house of the maternal uncle of the alleged victim girl stated to be aged about 14 years and it is alleged that accused trespassed into that uncle’s house and committed sexual assault upon her which mentioned in the FIR.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and that out of misunderstanding case was lodged.
5. Case diary is received.
6. I have perused the statement of the victim girl recorded before the learned JMFC. She has supported the allegations arising out in the FIR and stated about the cohesion of sexual assault upon the statements of the other witnesses also perusal also lends support to the allegation.
7. In the given facts and circumstances this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.
8. Accordingly this petition is rejected.
9. Returned back the case diary.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant