Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010141162025 2025:GAU-AS:9374 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1501/2025 MUKLES ALI ALIAS MULKEL UDDIN AND ANR S/O ABDUL BAREK @ BAREK UDDIN R/O VILL- NO. 5 BASHBARI, P.S. MANIKPUR, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM 2: NAZMA KHATUN W/O MUKLES ALI @ MULKESL UDDIN R/O VILL- NO. 5 BASHBARI P.S. MANIKPUR DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MR I U CHOUDHURY,MR. R A CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 22-07-2025 Page No.# 2/4 Heard Mr. R.A. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioners and also heard Mr. B. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State respondent. 2. This is an application u/s 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for granting pre-arrest bail to the accused petitioners in connection with Manikpur P.S. Case No. 61/2025 u/s 75/329(3)/64/62/117(2)/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 3. Case Diary is received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Choudhury that the present accused/petitioners are innocent and the accused petitioner no. 2 was on interim pre-arrest bail and after obtaining the interim pre-arrest bail she already appeared before the I/O and her statement has already been recorded by the I/O. Both the petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate the I/O in further investigation of this case. Mr. Choudhury further submitted that no such incident had taken place on the day of incident. However, there was a quarrel between the parties for missing of hens and in that context the informant has assaulted the accused no. 2 and only to save their skin the present FIR has been lodged with some false and concocted allegation. He further submitted that it is also not believable that both the petitioners who are husband and wife in relation and the accused no. 1 can attempt to commit rape on other woman. However, they are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation of this case, if they are granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail. 5. Mr. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that the victim had implicated the petitioner no. 1 in her statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS and that apart the Injury Report is also available for the Page No.# 3/4 victim though the injuries are simple in nature but there was several injuries obtained by her. Accordingly he objected and submitted that the petition for pre- arrest bail may be rejected at this stage. 6. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the Case Diary, the statement made by the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS. Considering the materials available in the Case Diary, Medical Report and other aspects of the case, vis-à-vis considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, I find that custodial interrogation may not be necessary for the present petitioners for the interest of investigation. 7. In view of this the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the present accused/petitioner no. 2, namely, Nazma Khatun vide order dated 27.06.2025 is hereby made absolute with same terms and conditions and the accused/petitioner no. 1 is hereby granted with the privilege of pr-arrest bail. 8. Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the accused/petitioner no. 1, namely, Mukles Ali @ Mulkel Uddin in connection with Manikpur P.S. Case No. 61/2025 u/s 75/329(3)/64/62/117(2)/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, he shall be enlarged on interim pre-arrest bail on his executing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer within 7(seven) days; (ii) that the petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation of the case and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when Page No.# 4/4 required in connection with the investigation of the aforesaid P.S. case; and (iii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threaten 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. 9. With the above observations, the pre-arrest bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant