Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010017192025 2025:GAU-AS:4385 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/196/2025 SAMSUL HOQUE SON OF SUBAN ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NO-2, RAMPUR, POST OFFICE- DEEJO, POLICE STATION- NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DISTRICT- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN- 787031 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:JAHUR UDDIN SON OF LATE- ABDUL KHALEK RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NO- 1 DEEJO PATHAR POST OFFICE- DEEJO POLICE STATION- NORTH LAKHIMPUR DISTRICT- LAKHIMPUR PIN- 78703 Advocate for the Petitioner : ALHAJJ I UDDIN, H M I HOQUE,MR ROBIUL HOQUE,MRS. R MOMTAZ Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR M HOQUE (R-2),MR. A PHUKAN, Amicus Curiac, (R-2),MR. A PHUKAN, Amicus Curiac, (R-2) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 08.04.2025 Heard Mr. A. I. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No.1 and Ms. J. Begum, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. M. Hoque, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. This application filed under Section 482 of BNSS, praying for granting pre- arrest bail to the accused/petitioner in connection with North Lakhimpur P. S. Case No. 377/2024, registered under Section 140(3)/65(1) of BNS read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act.. 3. The Case Diary was received earlier but the medical report could not be sent by the IO though it was called for in pursuant to the order dated 19.03.2025. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Uddin, that the present petitioner is innocent and he is not at all involved in the alleged offence as stated in the FIR. The petitioner contends that he is a married man and is happily residing with his wife and children. However, the father of the victim tried to offer his daughter for marriage to the petitioner, but when the petitioner refused the marriage proposal, the FIR was lodged with false and concocted allegations only to harass the petitioner. Further, it is submitted that the accused/petitioner is a permanent resident of his address locality and there Page No.# 3/4 is no chance of absconding. Therefore, he prays for the grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner and also submits that he is ready to cooperate with the investigating agency, if allowed. 5. In this context, Mr. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that there is sufficient incriminating material against the accused/petitioner and that the victim had implicated the petitioner’s name in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS. It is also an admitted fact that the victim was a minor at the relevant time of the incident and was below 16 years of age. He further submitted that as the case is registered under Section 65(1) of the BNSS, with the allegation of rape on a victim below 16 years of age, and as per Section 482(4) of the BNSS, the present anticipatory bail application is not maintainable. 6. Section 482 (4) of BNNS speaks that “Nothing in this section shall apply to any case involving the arrest of any person on accusation of having committed an offence under section 65 and sub-section (2) of section 70 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023”. 7. Accordingly, Mr. Sharma submitted that, apart from the incriminating materials available in the case diary, the petition itself is not maintainable under the provisions of BNSS. Therefore, he submitted that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. On the other hand, Ms. Begum, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, has submitted that the case is registered under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. She raised an objection and submitted that it is not a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner at this stage. 9. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both Page No.# 4/4 sides, as well as perusing the case diary, especially the statement of the victim, I do not find it a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner. Hence, the same stands rejected. 10. In view of above, this Anticipatory Bail application stands disposed of. 11. Case Diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant