Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010142252025 2025:GAU-AS:10563 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1528/2025 JUNTI DEV NATH S/O LATE BISWA DEV NATH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LB ROAD MALOR GAON, PS SOOTEA, DIST BISWANATH, ASSAM M. NO. 7002530354 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : S N NATH, S NATH,MS. M BEGUM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 11.08.2025 1. This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 by which the petitioner has prayed bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Sootea Police Station Case No. 67 of 2025 registered under Section 3, 4 and 5 of Page No.# 2/3 Immoral Trafficking (Prevention Act 1956). 2. The FIR lodged by the Sub-Inspector of Sootea Police Station reveals that on a secret information, when they searched the house of one Smt. RituSaikia, they found 10 (ten) used condoms and 2 (two) unused condoms within the compound of the said house and the same were seized. It is further stated that during the inquiry it is learnt that the petitioner who is the husband of Smt. RituSaikia is also involved in the said offence i.e. engaging young girls and married women by showing the greed of money and had operated a brothel behind their house. 3. Mr. S.N. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that there is violation of Section 15 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention Act) which provides that a Special Police Officer not below the rank of Inspector should search, seize and investigate offences under the said act. However, he submits that in the instant case, the Sub-Inspector of the Police Station has searched, seized and initially investigated the case. He also submits that the room where the business is stated to have been carried out is behind the compound of the house of the petitioner. He as such prayed for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. 4. Mr. K.K. Das,learend Addl. Public Prosector submits that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is involved in the said illegal business and behind his Page No.# 3/3 house the room was constructed and the business was carried out. He also submits that the said fact is reflected by the statement of the co-accused i.e the wife of the petitioner. He has such objected for granting of bail. 5. I have heard the parties and have perused the case diary. 6. It is seen from the FIR that the involvement of the petitioner is writ large in the offence of carrying out the said business. It is clearly stated in the FIR that the petitioner along with his wife and DigantaSaikia and others were carrying on the said illegal business behind their house by constructing a room and by hiding the said business from the public at large. 7. As such this is not a case for releasing the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The petition is dismissed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant