Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010016232025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/186/2025 ALAUDDIN ALI S/O- ATOWAR RAHMAN, VILL- CHENGA, P.S- BAHARI, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ALI, MR H A AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 21.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. H.A. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarmah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. 2. This application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Page No.# 2/3 Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Alauddin Ali, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Pathsala P.S. Case No. 03/2025, under Section 61/64 of BNS read with Section 3(2) (a)(b)/4(2)(b)/9 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. 3. The gist of the accusation in this case is that on 18.01.2025, the victim woman herself had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of Pathsala Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that about four months prior to lodging of the FIR when the husband of the victim woman was not there, both the named accused in the FIR came to her house and the present petitioner committed rape on her and also secretly recorded the video of the same. It is also stated in the FIR that the accused No. 1 by threatening the victim woman committed physical intercourse with her on many occasions. 4. On 10.01.2025, when the petitioner was committing rape on her, her husband came to her house and raised hue and cry and the victim woman has categorically implicated the petitioner in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNS. 5. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case, however, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the Case Diary of Pathsala P.S. Case No. 03/2025 and there are incriminating materials in the Case Diary, which shows the involvement of the present petitioner in the offence alleged in this case. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the present petitioner. Page No.# 3/3 6. Hence, the prayer for bail is rejected at this stage. 7. With the above observation, this anticipatory bail application is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant