Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010261202024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/3232/2024 SRI KANAK GOHAIN S/O LATE THUNUKA GOHAIN R/O TALAPATHAR P.O. TALAPATHAR PS. BORDUMSA DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM PIN-786160. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SRI MANJIT MORAN SON OF LATE TULESHWAR BARMAN R/O KAKOPATHAR 1 NO. TEZIGAON P.O. AND P.S. KAKOPATHAR DIST. TINSUKISA ASSAM PIN- 786152 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. BHASKAR DUTTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE, MS L RONGPIPI,MR JITENDRA DAS,MR. SAILENDRA DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR S ARAFAT(R-2),MR. N BORUAH (R-2) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 20.01.2025 Heard Mr. B. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Deka, learned counsel for the applicant; Ms. N. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent; and Mr. S. Arafat, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. Apprehending arrest in connection with the Kakopathar P.S. Case No. 34/2024, under Section 64 of the B.N.S. read with Section 6 of the P.O.C.S.O. Act, this application under Section 482 of the B.N.S.S., is preferred by applicant namely, Sri Kanak Gohain for grant of pre-arrest bail. 3. The said case has been registered on the basis of one F.I.R. lodged by one Monjit Moran, on 04.09.2024. The essence of allegation in the FIR is that the applicant had committed rape upon the victim, who happens to be the daughter of the first informant. 4. Mr. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and no way involved with the offence alleged in the F.I.R. and that he was falsely implicated here in this case. Mr. Dutta further submits that there was business rivalry between the accused and the brother of the first informant, for which he was falsely implicated. Mr. Dutta also submits that he is ready to cooperate with the investigating agency and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition. 5. On the other hand, Ms. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the Case Diary before this Court and referring to the statement of the victim girl recorded under Sections 180 & 183 of the B.N.S.S. submits that no Page No.# 3/4 such incident, as alleged in the F.I.R., had ever taken place and that the F.I.R. was lodged on being instigated by the brother of the informant and some of his friends. Ms. Das has also produced one medical report of the victim girl and submits that the said medical report negate the allegation so made in the F.I.R. Ms. Das further submits that she has no objection in the event of grant of pre- arrest bail to the applicant. 6. Whereas, Mr. Arafat, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that he has objection in the event of granting pre-arrest bail to the applicant as the Doctor, who had examined the victim girl had stated that the applicant has pleaded him to save him from the incident had happened in this case. 7. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the Case Diary and the medical report produced before this Court, with the assistance of learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 8. It appears from the statement of the victim girl and her mother recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S.S. and also from the medical report that no incident had happened as alleged in the F.I.R. the F.I.R. was, as per the victim and her mother, lodged on the instigation of some miscreants. 9. In view of above and considering the nature of accusation as well as the punishment prescribed for the same and also considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the applicants may not be required, in the interest of investigation. 10. Accordingly, this court is inclined to allow this petition. It is provided Page No.# 4/4 that in the event of arrest of the applicant, in connection with the Kakopathar P.S. Case No. 34/2024, under Section 64 of the B.N.S. read with Section 6 of the P.O.C.S.O. Act, he shall be enlarged on pre-arrest bail, on his executing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- only, with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. 11. The above privilege is, however, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) that the applicant 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 to any police officer; and (iii) that the applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia, without prior permission. 12. In terms of this AB stands disposed of. 13. The case diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant