Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010243972024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/3056/2024 SRI AMINUL ISLAM S/O AHED ALI @ OWAHED ALI, R/O VILLAGE GUTIPARA PART-VI (KALAIR-CHAR), P.O. CHOUDHURIR-CHAR, PS. BILASIPARA, DISTRICT DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN 783349 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR TO BE REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SMTI SURATAN NESSA (INFORMANT) W/O BAKKAR ALI R/O VILLAGE GUTIPARA PART-VI (KALAIR-CHAR) P.O. CHOUDHURIR-CHAR PS. BILASIPARA DISTRICT DHUBRI ASSAM PIN 78334 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A A R KARIM, MS G.PURI,Ms. R. R. BORAH,MR M HOQUE Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. A A MONDAL(R-2),F KHATUN (R-2),MR A ALAM(R-2),MR R A AHMED(R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI ORDER Date : 30 .01. 2025 Heard Mr. A.A.R. Karim, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sarmah, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. Also heard Mr. R. Ahmed, learned counsel Page No.# 2/3 for the respondent No. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, praying for pre-arrest bail by the petitioner, namely Aminul Islam, apprehending arrest in connection with Bilasipara P.S. Case No. 273/2024 (Corresponding to G.R. Case No. 505/2024) under Section 376 (1) IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The case diary is received and perused. The allegation made in the FIR is that the petitioner has drafted an agreement between the father of the accused No. 1 Abdul Motleb and the uncle of the victim girl that the marriage between the accused No. 1 and the victim girl be executed on attaining the age of majority by the victim. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is no way connected with the alleged offence, as mentioned in the FIR and the petitioner being an advocate has right to draft agreement, which is not an offence. In support of his case, the leaned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a case of Moynul Hoque (MD) and Anr. Vs. State of Assam reported in 2014 (2) GLT 458 and prays that considering the nature of allegation, the benefit of pre-arrest bail may be extended to the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned Addl. PP has produced the case diary and submitted that the petitioner being the advocate has drafted the agreement between the family members of the victim and the accused No. 1 and pre-arrest bail may be considered subject to full co-operation with the investigation of the case. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has no objection. In view of the above, it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid case, the petitioner named above shall be released on pre- arrest bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with a suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority subject to the following conditions that:- 1. the petitioner shall appear before the I.O. within 10 days from today. 2. the petitioners shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required; Page No.# 3/3 3. the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any other police officer, and 4. the petitioner shall not hamper with the investigation or temper with the evidence of the case. With the above direction, the bail application is disposed of. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant