Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010242502024 2025:GAU-AS:10641 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/3022/2024 JABIR UDDIN AND ANR S/O- YEASIN ALI, R/O- VILL.- BADE MAHAKAL, BADARPUR, DIST. KARIMGANJ, P.S. BADARPUR, ASSAM, PIN- 788806. 2: SABBIR AHMED @ SABIR AHMED @ SABIR HUSSAIN S/O- NEJAM UDDIN R/O- VILL.- BADE MAHAKAL P.S. BADARPUR DIST. KARIMGANJ PIN- 788806 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:ABUL HUSSAIN S/O- LATE MUDRIS ALI R/O- VILL.- BADEMOHAKOL P.S. BADARPUR DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 78880 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C BISWAS, MS A DAS,MS. U NANDA,MS A BORAH,MS. J GHOSH,MR. A K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. K MIRA (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN Page No.# 2/4 ORDER 12.08.2025 Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as Mr. K. Mira, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 by which the petitioner has prayed for pre-arrest bail in connection with Badarpur P.S Case No. 220/2024 corresponding to G.R Case No. 1615/24 registered under Section 87/70(2) of BNS read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The FIR dated 15.08.2024 reveals that while the daughter of the informant was returning along with her friends, the petitioners forcefully took her into a vehicle and closed the door and that for long period, the petitioners man-handled his daughter and forcefully tried to establish relation one by one and had outrage the modesty of the said victim. Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner submits before this Court that in the FIR there are no ingredients of Section 6 of the POCSO Act much less Section 17(2) of BNS, 2023. He as such submits that although there is a bar in Section 482(4) wherein, it is provided that provisions of Anticipatory Bail would not be available in cases under Section 65 as well as Section 70(2) of the BNS, 2023, Page No.# 3/4 however, since the ingredients of the said Section 17(2) is not present in the FIR, the said bar would not be applicable. He also submits that the ingredients of Section 6 of the POCSO Act is also not present in the said FIR. On the other hand, Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits the there are ingredients of offence of both Section 6 under the POCSO Act as well as Section 72 of the BNS in the said FIR inasmuch as, there are two (2) accused persons who were alleged to have committed the offence as well as the victim was manhandled by the petitioners. He also submits that charge sheet has been submitted in the instant case vide Charge Sheet dated 30.09.2024. I have heard the counsels and I have perused the records as well as the law involved in the present case. A bare perusal of the FIR reveals that the victim was kidnapped and was forcefully taken in a vehicle and while taking her, the petitioners had man-handled her and had tried to establish sexual relation with the victim and had outrage her modesty. Section 4 of the POCSO Act not only provides for insertion of the private part into the private part of the victim but also manipulation of the body of the victim, which can be seen in the instant FIR. Further, Section 6 of the POCSO Act which provides for punishment is relatable to Section 5, which provides the definition thereof, which again provides that whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child is said to have committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault and the definition of penetrative Page No.# 4/4 sexual assault is provide under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. Further, it is seen that under Section 482(4) of the BNS, it provides complete bar and the offence committed under Section 70(2) of BNS is writ large in the FIR. As such, the present application praying for Anticipatory Bail by the petitioners is not maintainable. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant