Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010028632025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/339/2025 KOWSAR ALOM S/O RAHMAT ALI R/O VILL-BARBARLI GAON P.O. BORBALI, P.S.MURAJHAR, 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 MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI ORDER 11.03.2025 Heard Mr. F.K.R Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.P Goswami, learned Addl. P.P for the State. Page No.# 2/5 2. By filing this second bail application u/s 482 of BNSS, 2023, the petitioner has prayed for bail who is apprehending arrest in connection with Murajhar P.S Case No.180/2024 under sections 337/3(5) of BNS, 2023 R/W Section 9/10/11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. 3. The FIR discloses that on 27.09.2024, one Abdus Sahid solemnized his minor daughter’s marriage with one Kowsar Alom i.e. the present petitioner by forging the date of birth of the minor bride in the birth certificate and Aadhar Card and forged the date of birth from 10.01.2006 to 04.06.2009 as per record. It is also alleged in the FIR that the family members of both the petitioner and the minor girl were involved in the said offence. Accordingly, a case was registered vide Murajhar P.S Case No.180/2024. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the plain reading of the FIR reveals that the entire story so projected in the FIR is without having any strong foundation to make out a prima-facie case against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the father of the petitioner and the father of the bride were engaged in a social discussion over the information of some other that the father of the bride is intended to get married her daughter who has completed 18 years of age and it was a normal family gathering to discuss the prospects of the information received by the parents of the petitioner and not any kind of marriage solemnization program. 5. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has not forged any kind of documents to get married with the minor girl as alleged in the FIR. Page No.# 3/5 6. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the I.O seized the photocopy of the Aadhar card and birth certificate of the minor girl from the possession of her father. The petitioner is the resident of village – Borbali and the minor girl is the resident of Oksek Pather which is around 8 km away from the village where the petitioner used to reside. Both the families are unknown to each other. Since the petitioner was working in Kerala in a company, father of the girl offered proposal to the petitioner’s family to get married with the petitioner projecting that his daughter was major. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that it was the parents of the girl who committed forgery in Aadhar card and birth certificate of their daughter in respect of her date of birth to make her major and competent to get married with the petitioner. The entire story projected in the FIR is false and concocted. As the petitioner is totally unaware about the incident and the forged documents were not recovered from the possession of the petitioner, the benefit of the pre-arrest bail be extended to the petitioner. 8. In response, the learned Addl. P.P has produced the case diary and submitted that the I.O has collected sufficient incriminating material against the petitioner by stating that he had forged the documents i.e. Aadhar card and birth certificate of the minor girl to get her married. The statement of the minor girl recorded by the learned Magistrate u/s 183 of BNSS, 2023 has also supported the same. 9. According to learned Addl. P.P, the evidence of other witnesses examined by the I.O during investigation also discloses that the alleged documents were forged by the petitioner. Hence, the learned Addl. P.P has opposed in granting Page No.# 4/5 bail to the petitioner. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the case diary, it reveals that though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the family members of the petitioner and the minor girl are not known to each other, however, the statement of the minor girl did not support the fact. Her statement was recorded by the Magistrate u/s 183 of BNSS, 2023, wherein she stated that her date of birth was 04.06.2009. She was a student of Guidance Senior Secondary School, Oksek Pather. The petitioner used to disturb her regularly when she was returning from school. He also asked her to love him, come into a relationship and marry him. 11. From the statement of the minor girl, it also discloses that the petitioner told her that he would prepare her a new Aadhar card and birth certificate by citing her date of birth as per her choice. As per his direction, she went to Jobula Gaon and gave her fingerprints there at a computer shop and the person who took her fingerprints on a machine was Toibur. She also gave her other personal details to Toibur. Eventually, she got her new Aadhar card and birth certificate from the petitioner and thereafter, on 20.09.2024, his parents had come to see her so that he and the petitioner could be married. By that time, police had arrived. 12. From the statement of the minor girl, it is crystal clear that the petitioner is very much involved in the alleged offence of forging the documents i.e. the birth certificate and the Aadhar card of the minor girl. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to project the father of the petitioner to be involved in forging the documents, however, from the case diary, it is reflected Page No.# 5/5 that the petitioner with connivance of some other persons had forged the alleged documents. 13. It is well settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions that subsequent bail application is maintainable only when there is change of circumstance in favour of the accused. Reference in this context can be made to a decision in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. S. A. Raja, reported in (2005) 8 SCC 380. Here in this case, admittedly no change of circumstances has been shown in favour of the accused petitioner. It also appears that investigation is yet to be completed. Under such backdrop, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. 14. In the result, the bail application stands dismissed. 15. The case diary be returned back. JUDGE Comparing Assistant