Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010041532025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/495/2025 AJIJUL HOQUE @ AIJUL HOQUE S/O- LATE MAIJUDDIN, R/O- SONARIBALI, P.S.- SAMAGURI, DIST- NAGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S M ABDULLAH P, MD IMRAN,MD R ISLAM,MS F HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI ORDER Date : 18.03.2025 Heard Md. Imran, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. N. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Page No.# 2/3 2. By this petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner, namely, Ajijul Hoque @ Aijul Hoque, has prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Samaguri P.S. Case No. 21/2025 under Section 111(4) of BNS, 2023 r/w Section 3/4 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. 3. As per the FIR, the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with his wife and another co-accused is running a brothel house in the Maxwell Hotel located at Sonaribali Bazar under Samaguri police station. When the police raided the said hotel, the co-accused along with some girls were apprehended and since then the petitioner was absconding. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the wife of the petitioner was arrested and subsequently released on bail by the learned trial court. It is also submitted that the petitioner is no way connected with the alleged offence as stated in the FIR. The petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation if the benefit of pre-arrest bail be extended to the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, Ms. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary and raised objection against the prayer of the petitioner by stating that the petitioner is very much involved in the alleged offence and sufficient incriminating materials are found in the case diary against the petitioner. Investigation is still under progress. Considering the gravity of the offence, the benefit of pre-arrest bail may not be considered to the petitioner. 6. Upon perusal of the case diary, it is revealed that the petitioner, along with his associates and several other individuals, operated a brothel by using the hotel rooms. Sufficient incriminating materials have been found against the Page No.# 3/3 petitioner, indicating his involvement in the illegal activity. 7. Under such backdrop, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Therefore, bail application is rejected. 8. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant