Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010191722024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2499/2024 RAKIBUL ALI S/O SURMAN ALI VILL- ANDURJHAR PT.I P.S. AND DIST. KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:EUSUF ALI SK S/O SABDER ALI SK. VILL- SUAPATA PARTII P.S. CHAPAR DIST. DHUBRI ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MD B ISLAM, MR A ALAM,MR. A A MONDAL Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. H ALI (R-2),MR K THAKUR (R-2),B ALI SK (R- 2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI ORDER 22.01.2025 Heard Mr. B. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Page No.# 2/3 R.R. Kaushik, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, and Mr. K. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2. This application under Section 482 of the BNSS, is filed for granting the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, namely, Rakibul Ali, apprehending his arrest in connection with Kokrajhar P.S. Case No. 183/2024 registered u/s 376(I) 506 IPC, r/w Section 6 of POSCO Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is no way connected with the offence as alleged in the FIR. He has never seen the victim at earlier point of time. The real fact of the case is that the father in law of the informant had a dispute with the petitioner, as such this false case has been instituted against the petitioner. In view of the above, the benefit of pre-arrest bail may be extended to the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the Case Diary and submits that the victim girl is minor, and she has implicated the petitioner in her statement recorded by the Magistrate under Section 183 of BNSS as such at this stage, bail may not be considered. Mr. K. Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 also vehemently opposed in granting bail to the petitioner. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the case diary, it reveals that the petitioner is a minor girl as per the birth certificate collected by the I.O. during investigation. The medical report of the victim also discloses that she is pregnant as per USG done on 26.08.2024. Though the victim got married, the marriage was held on 16.05.2024, for which the gestational period as mentioned in the medical report is not tallied with such period i.e. after her marriage. As per statement of the victim recorded under Page No.# 3/3 Section 183 of the BNSS, she has been sexually abused by the petitioner, and as a result of which, she became pregnant. In view of the above, this Court finds it not a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the pre-arrest bail application stands rejected. Return the case diary. This disposes of the anticipatory bail application. JUDGE Comparing Assistant