Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010235052025 2025:GAU-AS:15782 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2521/2025 MIR RAFIQUL HUSSAIN S/O MIR MUSHARAF HUSSAIN R/O PRANESWAR SARMA ROAD, (BEHIND SBI, RANGIA BRANCH), P.O. AND P.S. RANGIA DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:RAHANA AKHTARA W/O RAJU CHOUDHURY C/O ASHIF IQBAL R/O PRANESWAR SARMA ROAD (BEHIND SBI RANGIA BRANCH) P.O. AN DP.S. RANGIA DIST. KAMRUP ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ALI, N PERVIN,MD S HUSSAIN,J S AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. I CHOUDHURY(R-2),R L CHUTIA(R-2),MD E AHMED (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 18.11.2025 Page No.# 2/6 1. Heard Mr. R.Ali, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Mir Rafiqul Hussain, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Rangia P.S. Case No. 194/2025, under Section 75 of the BNS, 2023 read with Sections 8/12 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and added Sections 249/351 BNS, 2023. 3. This is for the 2nd time the petitioner has approached this court seeking anticipatory bail. On the previous occasions his prayer for bail was rejected by order dated 18.09.2025 passed in A.B. Case No. 2077/2025 after perusal of the Case Diary. 4. The gist of accusation in this case is that the mother of the victim girl, on 21.08.2025, had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Rangia Police Station, inter alia, alleging that on 5:30 PM on 20.08.2025, when the minor daughter of the informant went to the pharmacy situated in front of the State Bank of India, Rangia, to bring some medicine, she met the petitioner inside the pharmacy and the petitioner called her near him and started touching various parts of her body, including the private parts, as a result of which the daughter of the petitioner, came out from the pharmacy weeping and narrated the incident to the informant. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on the next day before lodging of the FIR, the mother of the victim had also complained to the principal of the school, in which the victim studies and, Page No.# 3/6 accordingly, a meeting was held. 6. In that meeting a resolution was adopted that the petitioner shall pay a compensation of minimum Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) to the victim girl or else legal recourse would be pursued. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offence involved in this case entails punishment not more than 7 (seven) years, however, no notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 has been issued to the petitioner neither any reasons has been shown for not issuing such notice. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the mandate of law that whenever in a case which involves offence which entails punishment not more than 7(seven) years, in the notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 should be issued at the instant case or else reasons has to be shown for not issuing such notice. However, nothing has been done in this case. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the meanwhile, the victim girl and the witnesses have been examined and the petitioner is ready to co-operate in the investigation. Hence, his custodial detention may not be necessary. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that under similar circumstances, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of “Praveen Jain @ Praveen Kumar Jain Vs. State of M.P.” (M.Cr.C. Case No. 17690/2020) granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner who was facing similar accusations on the ground that no notice under Section 41A Page No.# 4/6 was issued to the said petitioner. 11. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam has produced the Case Diary of Rangia P.S. Case No. 194/2025 and has opposed the grant of bail to the present petitioner on the ground that when the petitioner had approached this court on an earlier occasion, he took the similar plea in his bail application and same was dismissed on merit. 12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that no new ground has been shown in the instant anticipatory bail application. Hence, this anticipatory bail application itself is not maintainable. He further submits that in the meanwhile, there is new development as reflected from the endorsement made in the Case Diary by the Investigating Officer. 13. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that during the course of investigation, it has been noticed that the petitioner and his family member are trying to influence the informant and the family of the victim girl to compromise the matter and putting pressurize on them to do so. 14. Under such circumstances, he submits that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the present petitioner. 15. Also heard Mr. R.L. Chutia, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/informant, who vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the present petitioner on the ground that if the petitioner is allowed to go on anticipatory bail at this stage, he would pressurize the family of the Page No.# 5/6 informant to withdraw the instant matter. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner is trying to influence the family members of the victim girl to withdraw the said compliant and to reach at an amicable settlement and hence, if under such circumstances, the petitioner is allowed the benefit of anticipatory bail, he may exploit his liberty. 17. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the Case Diary, which has been produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor 18. Since in this case, the petitioner has not yet been arrested, since the offence involved in this case, entails punishment which does not extend to a period of more than 7(seven) years, it is incumbent upon the Investigating Authority to issue notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 in such cases. However, if the police officer, is satisfied on the basis of materials available before him that such arrest is necessary for some reasons, the police officer has to state the facts, records the reasons in writing while making arrest in such cases. 19. It is, however, pertinent fact that police has not yet arrested the present petitioner. 20. In the instant case, a relevant aspect is that during the course of investigation from the materials collected by the Investigating Officer, as appears from the Case Diary, there are materials to indicate that the family members of the petitioner have tried to pressurize the informant to withdraw/amicably settle the said complaint. Page No.# 6/6 21. Under such circumstances, though the Investigating Agency is yet to issue notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS, 2023, this court is reluctant to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage. Moreso, when his earlier anticipatory bail application was dismissed on merit, after perusal of the Case Diary. 22. This anticipatory bail application is, accordingly, dismissed. 23. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant