Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010245062024 2025:GAU-AS:332 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/3065/2024 ARACHAF ALI @ ARSOB ALI S/O LATE HAFLIJAT ALI R/O VILL- DEMOWMUKH P.O.AND P.S. SIVASAGAR, DIST. SIVASAGAR, ASSAM PIN-785640 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:MS. NAJI BEGUM W/O MD. ABEDUR ALI R/O VILL- DEMOWMUKH P.O. AND P.S. SIVASAGAR DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM PIN- 78564 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M H RAJBARBHUIYAN, MRS R CHETRI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. M K BROWN, Amicus Curiae, (R-2) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 09.01.2025 Heard Mr. M. H. Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No.1 and Ms. M. K. Brown, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No.2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner, who is apprehending arrest in connection with Sivasagar P. S. Case No. 145/2024, under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The Case Diary has been received and I have perused the same. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajbarbhuiyan, that false and concocted allegations have been brought against the present petitioner solely due to a previous grudge and a monetary dispute. While it is a fact that on the day of the incident, he visited the house of the informant only to collect money that the father of the victim had borrowed from him, the petitioner returned when the girl reported the unavailability of her parents. Subsequently, false and fabricated allegations led to the lodging of the FIR. He further submitted that the petitioner is an elderly man, over 70 years of age, with grandchildren, and that the victim is like a grandchild to him. Despite this, the FIR was lodged against him solely to harass him. Additionally, he pointed out that the FIR does not disclose any act committed by the petitioner, nor does it contain any ingredients to attract Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act. He contended that the victim may improve her case in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., but such a statement cannot be considered at this stage. In this regard, he relies on the decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hazrat Page No.# 3/4 Deen vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 134. Furthermore, the petitioner is still willing to cooperate with the investigating officer in the further investigation of the case, should he be granted pre-arrest bail. On the other hand, Mr. Baruah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted that the victim is a minor girl and has described how the petitioner had sexually assaulted her and touched her private parts. Thus, he raised objections and submitted that this is not a fit case to grant pre-arrest bail at this stage. Ms. Brown, learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that the victim is only 12 years old and that every detail cannot be described in the FIR. Accordingly, she raised objections in granting pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner. Considering the submissions of the learned counsels for both sides, the materials available in the Case Diary, and the age of the accused/petitioner, I find that custodial interrogation is not necessary in this case. Therefore, I consider it a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner. Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the accused/petitioners, namely, Arachaf Ali @ Arsob Ali, in connection with Sivasagar P. S. Case No. 145/2024, under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012, he shall be enlarged on pre-arrest bail on his executing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer within 7(seven) from today. (ii) that 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 Page No.# 4/4 to any police officer; and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate, without prior permission. In terms of above, this anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. The Case Diary be sent back. JUDGE Comparing Assistant