Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010155152025 2025:GAU-AS:10570 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1674/2025 SRI BHARAT DOLEY SON OF LATE MOTIRAM DOLEY, R/O DILAPAKHARA, P.O. KAMDEWAL, P.S. GOHPUR, DIST. BISWANATH, ASSAM PIN- 784169 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY ITS PP, ASSAM 2:SMT PURNIMA DOLEY PEGU WIFE OF SRI RAJEN PEGU R/O DILAPAKHARA P.O. KAMDEWAL P.S.GOHPUR DIST.BISWANATH ASSAM PIN- 78416 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. L GOGOI, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR P NEOG (R-2) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 11/08/2025 Heard Mr. L Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K K Parashar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent No. 1 and Mr. P Neog, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. The petitioner, namely, Sri Bharat Doley, has filed this application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, seeking pre-arrest bail apprehending his arrest in Gohpur P.S. Case No. 71/2025 registered under Sections 64(1), 88, 89, 238(a), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 read with Sections 6, 21 of POCSO Act, 2012 and read with Section 75 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. 3. The case of the petitioner is that an FIR was lodged on 09.07.2025 by the mother of the victim, wherein it was stated that the victim, who was 17 years of age was forcibly raped by the accused, namely, Krishna Madhur Doley subsequent to which the victim got pregnant. 4. The allegation against the present petitioner is that he is the brother of the accused, i.e., Krishna Madhur Doley and he took the victim to the hospital and aborted the child and that he informed her that the child had died and further that he did not return the dead body of the new born child. The allegation against the petitioner is only to the extent of commission of offence under Sections 88 and 89 of the BNS. 5. Mr. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ingredients of Sections 88 and 89 of the BNS are not attracted in this case with regard to the petitioner. 6. Mr. Gogoi, has placed a document issued by the J.K. Hospital, Biswanath Chariali, wherein it was reflected that the child was born alive and that she was sent for further treatment and as such, he submits that there cannot be any allegation against the petitioner with regard to Sections 88 and 89 of the BNS, which provides that whoever voluntarily causes a woman with child to miscarry, shall, if such miscarriage be not caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the woman, be punished with the prescribed punishment and Section 89 of BNS provides that whoever commits the offence under Section 88 without the consent of the woman, be punished with the prescribed punishment. However, the same is not the case according to the learned counsel for the petitioner Page No.# 3/4 and he has prayed for bail. 7. Mr. Parashar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam by perusing the case diary submits that there are statements of witnesses who had stated that the baby was born alive and she was taken from one hospital to the other for her treatment, however, on the way the baby died. 8. Mr. Parashar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam clearly submits that the baby was first taken from J.K. Hospital to Tezpur Medical College and Hospital, where the health of the child deteriorated and that the child was again taken to another hospital but before reaching the same on the way the child died. 9. Mr. Neog, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, however states that although the child was shown to have been born alive and was treated in hospital but the body of the baby was not handed over to anyone and rather the baby was not even seen by the victim or her family. He also submits that the victim who was minor was taken to the hospital without her consent by the petitioner and as such, he objects to grant of bail to the petitioner. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 11. It is noticed that the main accused person is Krishna Madhur Doley, who is alleged to have raped the victim as a result of which the victim got pregnant. 12. The allegation against the present petitioner is that he had taken the victim to the hospital and had aborted the child and further, informed that the child is dead without returning the dead body. However, in the report issued by the hospital which is annexed as Annexure-3, it is reflected that the baby after she was born was discharged from the said hospital for further treatment in some other hospital and as reflected in the case diary the baby was taken to another hospital where her health deteriorated and in the said hospital an advice was given to take the baby to another hospital for better treatment and on taking the baby to another hospital, on the way she died. 13. It is also reflected in the discharge certificate that the baby was put in the care of the petitioner. Therefore, it seems that the petitioner if he had any bad intention he would not have left his name written in the discharge certificate as care taker. In fact, it is reflected that steps were taken to keep the baby alive and the same cannot attract Sections 88/89 or any other provisions of the BNS. 14. As such, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner may be released on anticipatory bail. Page No.# 4/4 Accordingly, in the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with 2 (two) local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority with the following conditions:- (1) He shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the concerned Investigating Officer as and when he is required; (2) He shall not tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses whoever is connected with the case; (3) He shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of said Gohpur Police Station, without obtaining prior written permission from the concerned I/O of the case. 15. 15. With the above observation and direction, this anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. 16. Further, the observations made above will not have any effect on the trial of the case. JUDGE Comparing Assistant