Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010153312025 2025:GAU-AS:10166 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1623/2025 MANABENDRA KALITA SON OF RATNESWAR KALITA R/O DEUCHAR NUWAPARA P.S. BOKO DIST. KAMRUP VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR F HAQUE, MR A ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 05-08-2025 Heard Mr. F. Haque, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State respondent. Page No.# 2/3 2. This is an application u/s 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for granting pre-arrest bail to the accused petitioner in connection with Boko P.S. Case No. 177/2025 u/s 61(2)(a)/87/64(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Haque, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not committed any such offence as alleged in the FIR. However, it is submitted that he was known to the victim and they had a friendship and even used to talk over telephone. The incident is allegedly being committed on 26.05.2025 but, the FIR is lodged only on 01.06.2025 i.e. after 5 days of the FIR without any explanation of delay in lodging the FIR. The victim is a married lady and if any physical relationship was there between the informant/victim and the accused/petitioner, it may be consensual and there cannot be a question of any forcible physical relation. However, petitioner is still ready and willing to cooperate the I/O in further investigation of the case, if he is granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail. 4. Mr. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that Case Diary reveals sufficient incrimination materials against the present accused/petitioner and the victim also brought allegation against the present petitioner in her statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS. Mr. Borthakur accordingly raised objection and submitted that custodial interrogation may be required in the present case. 5. Hearing the submission made by learned counsel for both sides. I have also perused the Case Diary and considering the materials available in the Case Dairy and the statement of the victim and other aspects of the case, I find that custodial interrogation may not be necessary in the present case and Page No.# 3/3 accordingly I find it a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present petitioner. 6. Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the accused/petitioner, namely, Manabendra Kalita in connection with Boko P.S. Case No. 177/2025 u/s 61(2)(a)/87/64(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, he shall be enlarged on 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 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/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 8. The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant