Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010155992025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1691/2025 HANIF ALI AND 2 ORS S/O LATE ABDUL KADAR R/O VILL- MANDIRA NC, MALIBARI PATHAR, P.O. MALIBARI PATHAR, P.S. BOKO, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM 2: SOHOR ALI S/O HANIF ALI R/O IVLL- MANDIR ANC MALIBARI PATHAR P.O. MALIBARI PATHAR P.S. BOKO DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM 3: FAJAR ALI S/O LATE SAGAR R/O VILL- KHOLABANDHA NONKE P.S. KASUMARA DIST. BARPETA ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M KHAN, S RAHMAN,MR. R ISLAM,MR S ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 26.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. N.J Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Also heard Mr. D.P Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 3. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for pre-arrest bail in connection with Kusumara P.S Case No. 28 of 2025 registered under Section 87/351(3)/3(5) of BNS, 2023. 4. The F.I.R dated 25.06.2025 lodged by the father of the victim reveals that on 07.06.2025, his minor daughter, who was on her way to her aunt’s house, was kidnapped by the accused No. 1 with the help petitioner no. 3 and was taken to the house of the petitioner No. 1 & 2. 5. The informant further states that since then the minor daughter did not return home and that they searched and went to the house of the petitioner No. 1 & 2 who promised that they would rescue the informant’s minor daughter but they did not do the same. It was further stated that the informant contacted the accused thereafter, but they were threatened by them. 6. Mr. N.J Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations were against accused No. 1 who is stated to have a love relationship with the victim and he states that the petitioners, who are the father, brother and maternal uncle of the accused no. 1, had no role in the said offence. 7. Mr. D.P Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam fairly submits by perusing the Case Diary that witnesses were examined and most of them have stated that accused No. 1 had taken away the Page No.# 3/3 daughter of the informant and that none of the witnesses have stated about the complicity of the petitioners in the said offence. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records. In the F.I.R, although it is stated that accused No. 1, with the help of accused No. 4, i.e. the petitioner No. 3 had kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant, but, in the Case Diary and in the statement of the witnesses, the same is not reflected. The witnesses have stated that it was accused no. 1 mentioned in the F.I.R who had taken the victim. 9. As such, in view of the same, the petitioners may be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with 1 local surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority under the conditions that : (i) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and appear before the I/O within 7(seven) days from the date of this order, without fail. (ii) The petitioner shall not temper with the evidence or influence the witness connected with the case. 10. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant