Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010003142025 2025:GAU-AS:3254 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/65/2025 SAHIDUL ALI S/O AHAMMAD ALI VILL- NO. 1 SOULMARI (PATHANCHAR) P.S. HAJO, P.O. BARNI DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM PIN- 781102 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:BANESA BEGUM W/O DARBES ALI VILL- NO. 1 SOULMARI P.S. HAJO P.O. BARNI DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-78110 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J A AHMED, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. M K BROWN, Amicus Curiae, (R-2) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 24.03.2025 Heard Mr. J. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent for the State respondent No. 1 and Ms. M. K. Brown, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner, who is apprehending arrest in connection with Hajo P.S. Case No. 381/2024, under Sections 329(2)/117(2)/3(5)/74 of the BNS, 2023 read with added Section 8 of the POCSO Act. Case Diary has been received. Perused the same. Heard both sides. It is submitted by Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, that initially the F.I.R. was registered under bailable Sections of law and accordingly all the c-accused persons were also enlarged on bail. But, subsequently, on the prayer made by the I.O., Section 74 BNS read with Section 8 of POCSO Act have been added. He further submitted that the present accused/ petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. and from the plain reading of the F.I.R. itself, it is seen that it is a case of assault wherein a boy and the victim girl was alleged to be assaulted by some villagers. However, the present petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate the I.O. in further investigation of this case if Page No.# 3/4 he is granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. Mr. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted in this regard that it is a fact that earlier the case was registered under Sections329(2)/117(2)/3(5) of BNS, but subsequently, on the prayer made by the I.O., Section 74 BNS read with Section 8 of POCSO Act have been added. He further submitted that the victim clearly brought the allegation of sexual assault on her by the present accused/petitioner and for which Section 8 of POCSO Act had to be added. Accordingly, he raised objection and submitted that it is not a fit case for granting the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner. Ms. Brown, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No. 2, also submitted in this regard that initially the F.I.R. was lodged by the mother of the victim and it is a fact that while lodging the F.I.R., only the allegation of physical assault was brought, but when the statement of the victim was recorded, there found sufficient materials to add Section 74 BNS read with Section 8 of POCSO Act. Accordingly, she raised objection and submitted that the bail prayer of the present accused/petitioner may not be considered at this stage. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, I have also perused the case record, especially the statement made by the victim/respondent No. 2 recorded under Section 183 of BNSS. From the statement, it is seen that the victim specifically brought the allegation of sexual assault on her by the present accused/petitioner. However, against the other accused persons, there is no allegation of sexual assault except the present accused/petitioner. Page No.# 4/4 In view of above and also considering the materials available in the case record as well as the nature of offence alleged against the present petitioner, I do not find it a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present accused/petitioner and therefore the same stands rejected. The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of in terms above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant