Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010219012024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2792/2024 JOHURUL ISLAM @ JAHRIUL ISLAM S/O YUSUF ALI R/O VILL- CHOUTARA,P.S. CHHAYGAON DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR TO BE REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:DHOLA MIYA S/O AMIR UDDIN R/O VILL- GHORAMARA PATHAR P.S. CHHAYGAON P.O. TUKRAPAR DIST.KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-78113 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N HAQUE, MR. A K AZAD,MR K UDDIN,MR M HUSSAIN,MR R B ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MD A ISLAM (R2) Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 06.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. A. K. Azad, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 482 of BNSS 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Johurul Islam @ Jahriul Islam, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Chhaygaon P.S. Case No. 301/2024 under Section 376(3)/506/109/387 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. 3. The gist of the accusation in this case is that on 02.09.2024, the father of the victim girl had lodged an FIR, naming four accused persons in the said FIR, including the present petitioner and alleging that the minor daughter of the informant was enticed by one Rafiqul Islam (accused No. 1) named in the FIR and thereafter, other accused persons made indecent videos of the victim girl and blackmailed her by threatening her to make the video viral. 4. It is also alleged in the FIR that the indecent video made by the accused persons has already been uploaded in the social media. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no allegation of subjecting the victim girl to sexual intercourse by the present petitioner and therefore, he submits that no offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is made up against the present petitioner. He therefore requests for allowing the petitioner to go on bail. Page No.# 3/3 6. On the other hand, he learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary of Chhaygaon P.S. Case No. 301/2024 and has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the present petitioner on the grounds that there are incriminating materials against the petitioner in the case diary. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and have perused the materials on record including the case diary, which was called for, 8. On perusal of the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 183 of BNSS/164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it appears that the victim girl has categorically made implicating statement against the present petitioner. 9. Considering the nature of offence involved in this case as well as implicating materials available against the present petitioner, this Court is of considered view that this is not a fit case where benefit of anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner. 10. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. 11. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant