Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010244112025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2634/2025 ABDUL MALEK S/O LATE HUSSAIN ALI,R/O VILL.- LECHARIBORI,P.S.- MAYONG,DIST- MORIGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 782126 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SAMALA KHATUN W/O- ABUL HUSSAINR/O-MERORHABI P.S.- MAYONGDIST.-MORIGAON ASSAM PIN- 78212 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B M DEKA, MD B ISLAM,MR M HOQUE,MR. MASUM ALAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. A A MONDAL (R-2),MR A ALAM (R-2),MR. S UDDIN (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 16.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. B. Islam, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Page No.# 2/4 Assam as well as Mr. A. Alam, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. This application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Abdul Malek, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Mayong P.S. Case No.105/2024 (with corresponding GR No.1224/2024) registered under Sections 61(2)/65(1)/142 of BNS, 2023 read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 3. This is the second time, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail in this case. 4. On the earlier occasion, his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail was rejected by this court by order dated 26.11.2025, in AB Case No. 1972/2025. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. 6. He submits that at the time of alleged incident, the petitioner was not in the State of Assam, rather he was in Kerala. He further submits that the other accused persons have already been released on bail. 7. He also submits that the FIR has been lodged by the victim woman due to the dispute between the two wives of Abu Hussain, namely, Marfuza Khatun and the victim woman. 8. He also submits that in the meanwhile, the victim woman has already been married to one Nur Mohammad. He also submits that the petitioner is ready to cooperate in the investigation. 9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 have opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the Page No.# 3/4 earlier anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner was rejected by this court after the perusal of the case diary and after finding that there are specific allegations against the present petitioner made by the victim woman in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNS, 2023. 11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. 12. On the basis of the order dated 26.09.2025 passed in AB Case No. 1972/2025, it appears that the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner was rejected by this court on earlier occasions, mainly because of the fact that the victim woman in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNS, 2023 has categorically implicated the present petitioner and one Rejek Ali, whereas she had not made any such accusation against the rest of the accused persons. 13. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that, merely because the other accused persons are on bail, the petitioner would not get benefit of anticipatory bail. 14. Further, the FIR filed by the Marfuza Khatun, which was referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner, was mainly directed against Nur Mohammad and Azhar Ali and, therefore, the same does not have any connection with the FIR lodged in the instant case, where specific accusations have been made against the present petitioner and Rejek Ali. 15. It also appears that this Court had considered the pleas of the petitioner and had perused the case diary by rejecting the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on earlier occasion. No new grounds for reconsideration of anticipatory bail application has been made out by the present petitioner in this Page No.# 4/4 bail application. 16. In view of above, this Court is reluctant to issue any favorable order under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, at this stage. 17. This anticipatory bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 18. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant