Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010135812025 2025:GAU-AS:17387 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1439/2025 AKHIRUL ISLAM S/O FOJIAL HOQUE R/O VILL-KATHALBARI, P.O. PURAN DIARA,P.S. MANKACHAR, DIST. SOUTH SALMARA, MANKACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-783135 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S RAHMAN, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 16.12.2025 1. Heard learned Counsel Mr.S.Rahman for the petitioner Akhirul Islam who has filed this application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for pre-arrest bail apprehending arrest in connection with South Salmara PS Case No. 32/2025 (GR No.81/2025) under Section 70(1)/3(5) of the BNS. Page No.# 2/3 2. The FIR unfolds that on 06.03.2025, at about 8 p.m. the victim ‘X’ was rescued under indisposed condition at the edge of the pond near her house and it was learnt that Bachu Miah and Shona Miah committed rape on the victim ‘X’. The victim was taken to the Civil Hospital, Hatsingimari but the doctor referred her to Goalpara for better treatment. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the FIR was lodged after four days facilitating fabrication of case. It is also submitted that the present petitioner has not been named in the FIR. Only two accused persons have been named in the FIR. It is also submitted that as there was a delay in the prosecution in producing the FSL report and the report of the DNA sample, the petitioners may be released on bail. 4. Per contra, Mr. K.K. Das, learned Addl.P.P has resisted the prayer for bail, stating that there are incriminating materials in the case diary. The victim was found in an unconscious condition, and she was bleeding. Statements of witnesses under Section 180 and 183 of the BNSS, 2023 clearly implicates that the present petitioner is complicit. It is admitted that the delay has been explained and justified in the FIR because the victim was taken for treatment, and after her treatment, the FIR was lodged. It is admitted that there was a delay in producing the report on FSL and DNA after the undergarments were forwarded to the FSL. 5. I have considered that earlier the petition of the present petitioner was rejected. But now the petitioner has subsequently approached this court without any change of circumstances for bail. I have also scrutinized the case diary and the statements of the witnesses. Indeed there are incriminating materials in the case diary against the present petitioner. At this juncture, there appears to be Page No.# 3/3 no justified grounds to consider the bail petition. It appears that investigation may be affected if the petitioner is insulated by an order of anticipatory bail at this stage. Considering all aspects, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected at this stage, JUDGE Comparing Assistant