Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010258872024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/3209/2024 AMINUR RAHMAN AND ANR S/O IMAN ALI R/O VILL- ROWA PART-III (HINDURDAIR), P.S. GURIPUR, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM 2: MATIOR RAHMAN S/O SOMSER ALI R/O VILL- ROWA PART-III (HINDURDAIR) P.S. GAURIPUR) DIST. DHUBRI ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP ASSAM 2:SHIRAJUL HOQUE S/O SOBAHAN ALI R/O VILL- ROWA PART-III (HINDURDAIR) P.S. GAURIPUR DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-78333 Advocate for the Petitioner : T A LASKAR, MR. D K AGARWALA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS P DAS (AMICUS CURIAE, R-2) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI ORDER 28.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. D.K. Agarwala, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. N. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. By this petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioners, namely, Aminur Rahman and Matior Rahman, have prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Gauripur P.S. Case No. 213/2024 under Section 70(2), 62 of BNS, 2023 r/w Section 8 of POCSO Act (or Section 10 of POCSO Act). 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present petitioners are no way connected with the alleged offence as stated in the FIR. There is a dispute between the family members regarding marriage of the victim with the elder brother of the petitioners for which this false case has been instituted against the petitioners. The petitioners are ready to co-operate with the investigation. Considering the background of the case, learned counsel for the petitioners prays that the benefit of pre- arrest bail may be extended to the petitioners. 4. On the other hand, Ms. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has produced the Case Diary including the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and submits that the statement of the victim does not indicate any offence falls under the provision of POCSO Act. 5. Though, Ms. P. Das, is appointed as Amicus Curiae for the Page No.# 3/4 respondent No. 2, but she is not present at the time of hearing. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the Case Diary. 7. On perusal of the Case Diary, it reveals that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (183 BNSS) has stated that the petitioners along with other co-accused, forcibly dragged her to the bank of the river and when she raised alarm they fled away from the spot. The statement of the victim does not disclose any offence which falls under the category of Section 8 or 10 of POCSO Act. 8. Under such backdrop, this Court finds that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required for the purpose of investigation of the case. Therefore, the privilege of pre-arrest bail is granted to the petitioners. 9. Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the petitioners, named above, in connection with Gauripur P.S. Case No. 213/2024 under Section 70(2), 62 of BNS, 2023 r/w Section 8 of POCSO Act (or Section 10 of POCSO Act), they shall be released on furnishing bail bond of Rs.30,000/- each with a suitable surety each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. 10. The direction for pre-arrest bail is subject to the conditions that the petitioners:- (a) shall appear before the Investigating Police Officer within 10(ten) days from today and shall co-operate with the investigation; (b) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. Page No.# 4/4 11. The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. 12. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant