Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010161122025 2025:GAU-AS:9726 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1746/2025 NOMAZ ALI @ NOMAJ ALI SON OF LATE PAHALI VILL- 1 NO. BODOLONIP.S. BAGHBOR DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SAHERA KHATUN W/O SORHAB KHAN VILL- 1 NO. BODOLONI P.S. BAGHBOR DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781308 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ALI, MISS. S PARBIN,MR H A AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 28.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. H.A. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Page No.# 2/3 Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. 2. This application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Nomaz Ali@ Nomaj Ali, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Special POCSO Case No. 38/2025, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the basis of an FIR lodged by the grandmother of the victim, alleging, therein that her daughter has been subjected to physical intercourse by the petitioner, the Baghbar P.S. Case No. 73/2021 was registered and the investigation was initiated. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though after the completion of the investigation, Final Report was submitted. However, by order dated 04.06.2025, passed in Special POCSO Case No. 38/2025, the Trial Court, i.e., the Court of the learned Special Judge, POCSO, Barpeta had refused to accept the Final Report and taken the cognizance of offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 against the petitioner on the basis of the materials found in the record. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the offence involved in this case are non-bailable, the petitioner is apprehending his arrest. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Page No.# 3/3 submits that as the Trial Court has only issued summons to the petitioner, there is no apprehension of his getting arrested in the case and therefore, he prays for rejecting the anticipatory bail. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. 8. It appears that the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, POCSO, Barpeta had only issued summons to the petitioner, Nomaz Ali@ Nomaj Ali, after taking cognizance of offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Apart from the fact that only summons have been issued to the petitioner, it is also relevant that the Court which had issued summons to the petitioner does not have any embargo to consider an application for bail if it is filed by the petitioner on his appearance and to grant him bail, if he deems fit to do so. 9. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the apprehension of the petitioner getting arrested in the aforesaid case does not have a legal basis. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, this anticipatory bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant