Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010173852025 2025:GAU-AS:11439 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1884/2025 PRANAB KAKATI AND ANR SON OF PRABIN KAKATI R/O VILL PUB-KACHUKATA DHEKIAPUTA NAGAR, P.O.AND P.S. LATIBARI,DIST. BAKSA, ASSAM PIN-781368. 2: PRADIP KALITA SON OF HARIDEV KALITA R/O VILL- UTTAGANDHIBARI P.O. AND P.S. GANDHIBARI DIST. BAKSA ASSAM PIN-781367 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B PATHAK, MR. M SHARMAH,MS M TIWARI,MR. T NATH,MR B HAZARIKA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 27.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. B. Hazarika, learned senior counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, 1. Pranab Kakati and 2. Pradip Kalita, seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Tamulpur P.S Case No. 211/2025 registered under Sections 64/351(1)/79 of BNS,2023, R/W Section 66E of IT Act 2000. 3. The gist of the accusation in this case is that on 22.07.2025, the complainant i.e. Miss Jyotisikha Kakati, daughter of Tarini Kakati, had lodged an FIR before the Tamulpur P.S, inter alia, alleging that she and one Pranab Das, Son of Dinesh Das, resident of Jokmari was in friendly relationship during her school days. She further stated in her FIR that four months ago, the abovementioned accused forcefully threatened and molested her when her parents were not present at home. She further alleges that the abovementioned accused molested and filmed a video of her molestation and later on the above mention accused made the video viral in the social media platform. Thereafter, Tamulpur P.S Case No.211/2025,u/s 64/351(1)/79 of the BNS, R/W Section 66E of IT Act 2000 was registered. Page No.# 3/4 4. The police in course of investigation, arrested the main accused, Pranab Das. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, on perusal of the case diary, submits that insofar as the involvement of the present petitioners is concerned, they were involved in forwarding the video clip made by the main accused to some other person. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are very young persons aged about 18 and 19 years and they do not have any criminal intent. 7. It is further submitted that a lenient view may be taken, considering the relatively young age of the petitioners. 8. Perusal of the case diary reflects involvement of the petitioners in forwarding of the video clip in question. However, considering the fact that police has already seized the mobile phone, where the video clip was recorded and also the fact that the main accused has been released on regular bail, this Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is allowed. 9. Accordingly, the above-named petitioners are allowed to go on bail of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only each with one surety each of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Additional CJM, Baksa, Mushalpur with following conditions: (i) That the petitioners shall co-operate with the Page No.# 4/4 investigation and shall appear before the I.O as and when called for and shall not try to influence the witnesses or intimidate the victim in any manner; (ii) That the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts of the case before the Investigating Officer; 10. With the above observations, this anticipatory bail application is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant