Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010275612024 2025:GAU-AS:4657 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/3408/2024 MD AMIR UDDIN SON OF INNACH ALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BAHALAMUKH, P.O. LOSONBORI P.S- LAHARIGHAT, DISTRICT- MORIGAON, ASSAM PIN- 782126 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:MD. ABUL HUSSAIN SON OF ABDUL RAHMAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAHALAMUKH WARD NO. 10 P.O- MOIRABARI P.S- MOIRABARI DISTRICT- MORIGAON ASSAM ASSAM. PIN - 78212 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR J C BORAH, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. D GOGOI, Amicus Curiae (R-2),MS P DAS (LEGAL AID COUNSEL FOR R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 11-04-2025 Heard learned counsel Mr. J.C. Borah for the petitioner Md. Amir Uddin, Page No.# 2/3 who has filed this application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with prayer for pre-arrest bail as he is apprehending arrest in connection with Laharighat Police Station Case No. 129/2024 under Sections 376(3)/506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2. Heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent State and Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Amicus Curiae and Ms. P. Das, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the informant/respondent No. 2. . 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has committed sexual assault on the victim and has impregnated her. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this FIR was lodged against him by the victim’s father whereas subsequently, the victim’s mother has lodged an FIR against Halima Khatun and Ainul Hoque and the incident was relating to same cause of action and there was no allegation against the petitioner. It is also submitted that Halima Khatun and Ainul Hoque were involved in immoral tracking and finally, an FIR was lodged on 02.07.2024 which clearly reveals that the main accused are Halima Khatun and Ainul Hoque and not the present petitioner. The petitioner is not the miscreant who has impregnated the victim. 5. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection and have also scrutinized the Case Diary. Indeed there are incriminating materials in the Case Diary against the petitioner. 6. It appears that at this juncture there appears to be no justified ground to Page No.# 3/3 extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. Hence, petition stands rejected at this stage. 8. In terms of the above observation, this Anticipatory Bail application stands disposed of. 9. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant