Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010041302025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case : AB/478/2025 SRI SHIRAJUL HOQUE AND ANR. S/O LATE ABDUR RAHMAN RESIDENT OF DURAHATI (CHAR) P.O TISTARPAR P.S DHUBRI ( SADAR) DISTRICT DHUBRI ASSAM PIN 783324 2: SMTI NUR JAHAN BIBI W/O SRI SHIRAJUL HOQUE RESIDENT OF DURAHATI ( CHAR) P.O TISTARPAR P. S DHUBRI (SADAR) DISTRICT DHUBRI ASSAM PIN 783324 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ASSAM 2:SMTI. AMENA BIBI (INFORMANT) W/O MOINUL HOQUE SARKAR @ MOIDUL HOQUE SARKAR R/O BALADOBA PART-II P.O. BALADOBA P.S.DHUBRI (SADAR) DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783334 ------------ Advocate for : MR. A A R KARIM Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI ORDER 21.04.2025 Heard Mr. A. A. R. Karim, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent No.1 and Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. This is an application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., praying for pre- arrest bail by the petitioners, namely, Sri Shirajul Hoque and Smti Nur Jahan Bibi, in connection with Dhubri PS Case No. 11/2025 registered under Section 296/117(2)/65(1)/62/3(5) of BNS R/W Section 8 of POCSO Act corresponding to GR No. 25/2025. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not connected with the alleged offence. Earlier, the accused petitioner lodged an FIR against the accused Moidul Hoque Sarkar, who is a teacher in a school with an allegation of sexual assault towards his daughter. Subsequently, the wife of Moidul Hoque Sarkar lodged an FIR against the present petitioner with false allegation of sexual harassment towards her minor daughter. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the incident occurred on 26.12.2024 but the FIR lodged after nine days of the incident i.e. on 04.01.2025. In view of the above, benefit of pre-arrest Page No.# 3/4 bail may be granted to the petitioner. On the other hand, Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the victim has implicated the petitioner No.1 in this case and as such he has opposed in granting bail to the petitioner No.1. However, the bail may be considered to petitioner No.2 i.e. wife of the petitioner No.1. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 has submitted that he has no objection if bail is granted to the petitioner No.2. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the case diary including the statement of the victim which reveals that the allegation against the petitioner No.2 is that on the date of incident when the victim girl came to the house of the petitioner, the petitioner No.2 pulled her inside the house and assaulted her. As per medical report no evidence of injury is detected on the person of the victim girl. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner No.2, Nur Jahan Bibi. Regarding petitioner No.1, it is clearly stated by the victim girl in her statement that when his wife pulled her inside the house, the petitioner slapped her, pushed her and touched her full body and then she lost her consciousness. As there is prima facie material against the petitioner No.1, his prayer for bail is rejected. Considering the facts as well as the materials available thereon, this Courts finds that custodial interrogation of the petitioner No.2 is not required for the purpose of investigation of the case. Therefore, she may be granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail. Page No.# 4/4 Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the petitioner No.2, named above, shall be released on pre-arrest bail, in connection with the above noted case on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 30,000/- with a suitable surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. The direction for pre-arrest bail is subject to the conditions that the petitioner: (a) shall appear before the Investigating Police Officer within ten days from today and shall co-operate with the investigation; (b) shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant