Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010164962025 2025:GAU-AS:10601 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2390/2025 MD IBRAHIM ALI ALIAS BABUL ALI SON OF RAFIKUL ISLAM R/O CHAPA RABRI, P.O. CHAPARBARIP.S. PATACHARIKUCHI, DIST. BAJALI, ASSAM PIN-781352. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR W R MEDHI, S I AHMED,MR A V SINGH,MR P TALUKDAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA O R D E R Date : 12.08.2025. Heard Mr. W.R. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of Page No.# 2/3 bail to the accused petitioner, namely, Md. Ibrahim Ali @ Babul Ali, who has been arrested on 20.07.2025, in connection with Patacharkuchi P.S. Case No. 147/2015, under Sections 76/79/351(2) of the BNS, 2023. It is submitted by Mr. W.R. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner that the present petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any such offence as alleged in the FIR. There is a monetary dispute between the victim and the accused petitioner and on the day of incident also no such incident had happened as stated in the FIR. Further he submitted that though the case is registered under Section 76 of the BNS, 2023, but there is no such ingredients to attract the Section 76 of the BNS, 2023. Rather, as per the allegation, it was the accused who disrobed himself at the time of incident and not the victim. Mr. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is in the custody since last 23 days and the I.O. has got sufficient time to interrogate him in the custody. The learned counsel further submitted that the sections under which the case was registered are all punishable below/upto seven years and hence, it is the duty of the I.O. to provide with the notice under Section 35(3) of the BNS, 2023. But the reasons which have been mentioned in the forwarding report is also not sufficient to dispense with the notice under Section 35(3) of the BNS, 2023. But the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the I.O. in further investigation of the case, if he is granted with the privilege of bail. Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam submitted in this regard that there are sufficient incriminating materials brought by the victim as well as by some of the witnesses who saw the incident. Considering the materials available in the case diary, the petitioner is not entitled for bail at this Page No.# 3/3 stage. He further submitted that the victim had explained as to how she was misbehaved with the intent to commit rape on her and in that context, the petitioner himself disrobed him and came towards the victim with the said intention. Mr. Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor accordingly raised objection and submitted that the petitioner may not be released on bail at this stage. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the case diary. Considering the materials available in the case diary, specially the statement of the victim, I do not find it a fit case to allow the accused petitioner to go on bail at this stage. Further, it is seen that the I.O. made some sort of explanation regarding the dispensing of notice under Section 35(3) of the BNS, 2023 and considering the entire situation and circumstances of the case, it is seen that further custody of the petitioner may be the requirement of the case. Considering all the above aspects of the case, I do not find it a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the present accused petitioner at this stage and the same stands rejected. Send back the case diary forthwith. JUDGE Comparing Assistant