Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010271142024 2025:GAU-AS:575 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/3359/2024 GANGA DAS S/O BHARAT DS R/O VILL- ALAIBARI TOLDHAM, P.O. AND P.S. KHETRI DIST.KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM PHONE NO. 8399927695 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SMT. PDMA DEKA THAKURIA W/O MAHESWAR THAKURIA R/O HAHARA (KAMARKUCHI) P.S. SONAPUR DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P K KALITA, MR. S K JAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. B SARMA, AMICUS CURIAE, (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 21.01.2025 Heard Mr. P.K. Kalita, learned counsel for the applicant; Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent; and Ms. B. Sarma, Page No.# 2/3 learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No. 2. 2. Apprehending arrest in connection with the Khetri P.S. Case No. 193/2024, under Sections 127(2)/75(1)(2) of the B.N.S. read with Section 8 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 Ganga Das for grant of pre-arrest bail. 3. It is to be noted here that the said case has been registered on the basis of one F.I.R., lodged by one Sri Padma Deka Thakuria, on 18.11.2024. The essence of allegation made in the F.I.R. is that on the night of 18.11.2024, while the minor daughter of the informant was returning home, after performing Bihu function, in the motor cycle of the applicant, then he subjected her to sexual harassment. 4. Mr. Kalita, learned 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 the wife of the applicant also lodged one F.I.R. against the victim girl, but no case was registered upon the same. Mr. Kalita further submits that the applicant is ready to cooperate with the investigating agency and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition. 5. On the other hand, by producing the Case Diary before this Court, Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the I.O. has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the applicant. Mr. Sarma further submits that the investigation is still going on and if the privilege of pre-arrest bail is granted to the applicant at this stage, it will hamper the investigation and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. Mr. Sarma also submits that though the wife of the applicant had filed one F.I.R., yet, the same was investigated and allegation leveled therein is found to be incorrect and therefore, no case was registered upon the same. 6. Whereas, Ms. Sarma, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No. 2 has also opposed the petition on the ground that the allegation leveled in the F.I.R. is serious in nature. Page No.# 3/3 7. Having heard the submissions 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 produced before this court with the assistance of learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 8. In view of the materials so far collected in the case diary especially the statement of the victim girl recorded under Sections 180(A) & 183 of the B.N.S.S., this court is of the view that at this stage it cannot be said that custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary in the interest of investigation. If the privilege of pre- arrest bail is granted to the applicant at this stage, it will hamper the investigation and therefore, this court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the privilege of pre- arrest bail can be extended to the applicant at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 9. The case diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant