Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010166512025 2025:GAU-AS:9884 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1796/2025 SHIRAJUL HOQUE S/O LT ABDUR RAHMAN R/O DURAHATI CHAR PS DHUBRI DIST DHUBRI ASSAM PIN 783324 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP ASSAM 2:AMENA BIBI D/O MOINUL HOQUE SARKAR R/O BALADOBA PART II PS DHUBRI DIST DHUBRI ASSAM PIN 78333 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M A ISLAM, MR J I MONDAL,MR J ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 31-07-2025 Heard Mr. M.A. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Page No.# 2/4 Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Shirajul Hoque, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Special Case No. 99/2025, corresponding to Dhubri Police Station Case No. 11/2025 under Sections 296/117(2)/65(1)/62/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the basis of an FIR lodged by the mother of the victim girl on 04.01.2025, alleging that her daughter was assaulted by the petitioner and his wife, an investigation was initiated and charge sheet has been laid against the petitioner under the aforesaid penal provisions. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR lodged by the informant is a false and concocted FIR lodged due vengeance as about 8 (Eight) months ago, the petitioner had also lodged an FIR against the brother-in-law of the informant, accusing him of committing offence under the POCSO Act against his daughter and in that case, FIR and charge sheet has also been lodged against the brother-in-law of the informant and he was not granted bail by the learned Trial Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though no ingredients of Section 65 of any of the offence under the POCSO Act is there in the case, which is apparent from the perusal of the FIR, still police has wrongly filed the charge sheet under the said provisions against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the learned Trial Court has issued summons to the petitioner and fixed the next date of appearance of the petitioner as 01.08.2025, however, as one of the offences involved in this case Page No.# 3/4 are under the POCSO Act, hence, he is apprehending that on his appearance before the Trial Court, he may not be granted bail. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there is no apprehension of the petitioner getting arrested in this case as the Trial Court has only issued summons to him. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides. An application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, is maintainable only if a person is apprehensive of getting arrested in connection with a non-bailable offence. 8. In the instant case, after laying of the charge sheet, the learned Trial Court has only issued summons to the petitioner and the Court which had issued summons is a Court of Sessions Judge-cum-POCSO Judge, Dhubri, which is competent enough to consider any application for bail and even grant such bail if it thinks fit to do so under the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, as there is no legal embargo from the Court which issued notice to the petitioner to consider the application for bail and grant it if it thinks fit to do so, the apprehension of the petitioner, getting arrested in the said case does not have any legal base. 9. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail application is disposed of with an observation that the petitioner may approach before the learned Trial Court and may file a regular bail application on his appearance before the said Court, if so advised. JUDGE Page No.# 4/4 Comparing Assistant