Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010026482025 2025:GAU-AS:2880 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/300/2025 NITYANANDA HAZARIKA S/O LATE LOKESWAR HAZARIKA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KUMARGAON, SENCHOWA, PS NAGAON SADAR, DIST NAGAON, ASSAM 782002 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:PUTULI BORDOLOI W/O DULU BORDOLOI RESIDNET OF VILLAGE RAHDHALA PO AND PS JAJORI DIST NAGAON ASSAM 78214 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M RAHMAN, MOTIUR RAHMAN,MR M H AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MD S ALI (R-2),MR. O ULLAH(R-2) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 18.03.2025 Heard Mr. M. H. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1 and Mr. S. Ali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant/respondent No. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with Jajori P.S. Case No. 08/2025, under Sections 319(2)/140(3)/64(1) of BNS read with Section 6/17 of POCSO Act, 2012. Case Diary has been received. Perused the same. Heard both sides. It is submitted by Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the present petitioner is innocent and he is no way connected in the alleged offence. It is an admitted fact that he is the proprietor/owner of the Resort, but on the day of incident, he was not present in his Resort and it was running by his Manager. Further he submitted that from the statement made in the F.I.R., it evident that there is no direct allegation against the present accused/petitioner showing his involvement in the offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act and at best there may be a case under Section 17 of POCSO Act for abetment. However, the petitioner is ready and willing to co- operate the I.O. in further investigation of this case if he is granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. Page No.# 3/4 Mr. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted in this regard that there are sufficient incriminating materials available in the Case Diary against the present accused/petitioner and from the note of the I.O. as well as from the statement of some of the independent witnesses, who are the neighbours, it is seen that the present accused/petitioner was using the said Resort as a Brothel or for some illegal activities. More so, he was earlier in judicial custody in connection with Nagaon P.S. Case No. 302/2025, under Section 370(1)/376 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3/4/5/7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and the case has already been charge-sheeted against the present accused/petitioner. He further submitted that if the present accused/petitioner is released on bail at this stage, he will again involve in similar kind of offence of immoral trafficking by using his Resort as Brothel. Accordingly, Mr. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, raised objection and submitted that this is not at all a fit case to grant the privilege of pre- arrest bail to the present accused/petitioner. Mr. Ali, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/informant, submitted in this regard that the person who committed rape on the minor victim has already got arrested in connection with this case and the informant is not aware as to whether the present petitioner was present at the relevant time of incident or not. However, he raised no objection if the present accused/petitioner is granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and also on perusal of the entire materials on record, viz-a-viz the note of the I.O. and the statement of witness recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is seen that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present accused/petitioner who was using his Resort as Brothel by allowing all the illegal activities in his Resort. Further it is seen that the accused/petitioner is also having previous record of Page No.# 4/4 committing similar kind of offence and for which also, a case has been registered against him under Nagaon Police Station. Thus, considering all these aspect of the case, I do not find it a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present accused/petitioner and accordingly, the same stands rejected. In terms of above, this anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant