Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010028622025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/338/2025 HUSSAIN AHMED S/O LATE ALEM HAJI R/O VILL-LASKAR PATHER P.O.LASKAR PATHER, P.S. LANKA DIST. HOJAI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : M U BARBHUYAN, MRS. H THAKURIA,F K R AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER 10.03.2025 Heard Mr. F K R Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 by the petitioner, namely, Page No.# 2/2 Hussain Ahmed, who apprehends arrest in connection with Lanka P.S. Case No. 354/2024. The informant alleged that on 11.11.2024 her 15(fifteen) years old daughter was missing from the house. Subsequently, she was coming to know that the present petitioner had kidnapped her so that he could marry her. Till filing of the FIR, the girl was not recovered. During investigation, the girl was recovered. She gave statement before Magistrate that the petitioner is the husband of her elder sister. He took her to an unknown place in a car. According to the girl, he wanted to marry her. He even called the parents of the girl over phone and told that he wanted to marry her and if they agree then she will be allowed to return home. Her parents disagreed. Even her elder sister was also disagreed. According to the girl, she was recovered from the place where she was kept by the present petitioner. The girl discloses that the petitioner had forcibly established sexual relationship with her. Mr. Ahmed has submitted that the petitioner used to work in the State of Kerala. He took his wife and sister-in-law to Kerala. They stayed there for some days and after their return from Kerala, the mother-in-law of the present petitioner lodged an FIR before Police without any reason. Mr. Ahmed further submits that the FIR was lodged after being instigated by some other persons. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides. There are sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioners to justify his detention. Therefore, the petitioner does not deserve to be given the privilege of pre-arrest bail. Hence, the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner is rejected. The bail application is dismissed and disposed of. Case diary shall be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant