Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010280012024 2025:GAU-AS:731- DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : W.P.(Crl.)/1/2025 SALEHUDDIN AHMED SON OF ALAUDDIN AHMED, RESIDENT OF VILL- MANDAKATA, P.O.- MANDAKATA, P.S.- BAIHATA CHARIALI, IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP(R), ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, GOVT. OF ASSAM, HOME DEPARTMENT. 2:DHIRAJ KUMAR NATH S/O- LATE SENIRAM NATH R/O- MALIBARI TORA P.S.- SIPAJHAR IN THE DISTRICT OF DARRANG ASSAM. 3:ROMBHARANI NATH W/O- LATE SENIRAM NATH R/O- MALIBARI TORA P.S.- SIPAJHAR IN THE DISTRICT OF DARRANG Page No.# 2/5 ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR UNUSH KHAN, MR S DAS Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 22.01.2025 (S. P. Khaund, J) Heard Mr. U Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the State. 2. Pursuant to the order of the Court dated 08.01.2025, the Superintendent of Police, Darrang, Mangaldai vide his communication under Memo No. MLD/V/2025/219 dated 18.01.2025, through Mr. P Sharma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, has submitted a detailed report in the matter. 3. The said report has also been shown to Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the victim, i.e., wife of the petitioner did not return to her matrimonial home after she was shifted to One Stop Centre (Sakhi) implicating that, she was prevented by inducements or threats to return to her matrimonial home. 5. Through the instant petition it is submitted by the petitioner that the marriage between the petitioner and the victim was solemnized on 20.02.2024 Page No.# 3/5 and that since then both of them stayed together as husband and wife; however, on 10.12.2024, the petitioner was apprised that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 under the inducement of some unknown persons from their society were contemplating to lodge an FIR against him. The petitioner then applied for anticipatory bail and this Court vide order dated 17.12.2024 in AB No. 3322/2024 called for a report whether any FIR had been lodged against the petitioner and granted interim protection to him till receipt of such report. Meanwhile, an FIR was lodged by the victim’s cousin at Burha Police Outpost under the jurisdiction of Sipajhar Police Station, which was finally registered on 13.12.2024 as Sipajhar Police Station Case No. 196/2024 under Section 61(2)/305 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 with allegations of theft against the victim. 6. When the petitioner and his wife, i.e., the victim learnt about the lodgment of the FIR, both of them decided to appear before the police on 18.11.2024 to clarify their stance. 7. It is stated by the petitioner that the victim’s family members tried to persuade the victim women to desert/abandon him, i.e., her husband (the petitioner) and subsequently, another FIR was lodged by the brother of the victim alleging that the petitioner has forcefully converted her to Islam, inducing her with the aid of hypnotism and other sources. Said FIR was registered as Sipajhar Police Station Case No. 199/2024 under Sections 61(2)/3(5)/299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 6(a) read with Section 5 of the Assam Healing (Prevention of Evil) Practices Act, 2024. 8. It is further submitted that the victim, who was eager to return to her matrimonial home after visiting the Police Station on 18.12.2024, was prevented Page No.# 4/5 from returning to said home. It is stated that the petitioner and the victim were unable to contact each other and the victim’s mobile phone was found to be switched off and her whereabouts was not known and that since 18.12.2024, the victim is untraceable despite several endeavours made by the petitioner to contact her. 9. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 08.01.2025, learned Senior Government Advocate has submitted a report relating to the status of the cases being Sipajhar Police Station Case No. 196/2024 and Sipajhar Police Station Case No. 199/2024 as well as the status relating to the custody of the victim or the disappearance of her. 10. As noted above, a detailed report has been submitted today by the Superintendent of Police, Darrang, Mangaldai dated 18.01.2025 placed by Mr. P. Sharma, leaned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam which clearly reveals that on 18.12.2024, Kamrup police informed that they had found the missing victim X and she was in the the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Kamrup, Amingaon. Accordingly, on receipt of such information, the Officer-in- Charge of Sipajhar Police Station proceeded to the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Kamrup, Amingaon to take her back to the Sipajhar Police Station for further necessary legal action. After examination, said victim woman was provided shelter in “Sakhi” One Stop Centre, Mangaldoi for her safe custody and she remained there till 25.12.2024. 11. From the report of the SP, Darrang, Mangaldai dated 18.01.2025, it is seen that the victim woman is aged of 26 years, was recovered by police in connection with Sipajhar Police Station Case No. 199/2024 and as the said victim was a major in age, on 26.12.2024 she was released on her own personal Page No.# 5/5 bond. In the said detailed report of the SP, Darrang, Mangaldai dated 18.01.2025 it is categorically stated that the victim was not kept under confinement as alleged by the petitioner Salehuddin Ahmed. 12. It appears that the investigations into both the cases are currently ongoing. Petitioner’s alleged wife i.e. the victim woman is of 24-26 years of age as apparent from the Anneuxres - 1, 2 and 3 annexed to the petition by the petitioner and the said victim is a major in age. It is needless to say that the police investigation of the aforementioned cases will continue and the police may submit its final report in accordance with law. 13. It is amply clear that the victim woman has not been wrongly confined as being alleged by the petitioner and since she is major in age, she is free and accordingly, has been released on her own PR bond. 14. In the wake of the foregoing discussions, this petition, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant