Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010049952025 2025:GAU-AS:5200 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/565/2025 SANIDUL ISLAM S/O BINAD ALI R/O VILL-DONGRA P.O.DHAKUA,P.S. AND DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- 781309 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:ABUL BASHAR S/O LATE ROHIZ UDDIN R/O VILL- DONGRA P.O. DHAKUA P.S. AND DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN-78130 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S B LASKAR, A. H. AHMED,MS D DUTTA,MR. H A LASKAR,MR. A S TAPADER Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. A ROSHID (R-2) Page No.# 2/7 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 29.04.2025 Heard Mr. S.B. Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent and Mr. A. Roshid, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/informant. 2. This interlocutory bail application is filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, seeking grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner i.e. Sanidul Islam who is apprehending arrest in connection with Barpeta P.S. Case No.10/2025 dated 10.01.2025 registered under section 376(1) IPC/351(2) BNS, read with Section 4/17 of POCSO Act. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the informant lodged Barpeta P.S Case No. 10/2025 dated 10.01.2025, U/S 376 (1) IPC / 351(2) BNS, R/W Section 4/17 of POCSO Act in the Court of Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta. The allegations levelled in the FIR is reproduced herein-below: "It is respectfully stated that accused No.1, nearly two years ago, lured my minor daughter, Aklima Sutana (Date of Birth- 16/03/2007), by deceiving her with various temptations and forced her into a romantic relationship. Subsequently, accused No.1, with the help of the other accused persons, frequently manipulated my daughter, took her to his residence, and forcefully committed sexual intercourses upon her against her will. On 29.12.2024, at about 10 PM, the accused No.1, with Page No.# 3/7 the advice and help of the other accused, took my daughter to his house and forcibly engaged in sexual intercourse with her against her will. When my daughter objected and expressed her intention to inform our family about their wrongful actions, the accused collectively threatened to kill her if she disclosed the incident. Due to fear, my daughter remained silent for a long time. However, today, she has finally informed me and my family about the entire incident. Therefore, I am filing this FIR to seek justice and request strict legal action against the accused persons.” 4. Thereafter, the case was registered against the accused/petitioner along with the other co-accused. Hence, the present anticipatory bail application has been filed apprehending arrest thereof. 5. Mr. S.B. Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the accused/petitioner was in love affair with victim girl, who was aged about 16 years at the time of occurrence of the incident. He further submits that as both the accused/petitioner as well as the victim girl did not attain their respective age of majority in the year 2022, the father of the accused/petitioner and the informant/respondent No.2 had executed an agreement dated 08.07.2022 by agreeing to solemnize marriage of the accused/petitioner and the victim girl after they attain the age of majority respectively. 6. Mr. S.B. Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the allegations contained in the FIR is totally false and he has never taken the victim girl to his house and committed any Page No.# 4/7 sexual act as alleged in the FIR. He further submits that there is delay of 2 (two) years in lodging the FIR and the same is lodged only to harass the accused/petitioner and his family members as the father of the accused/petitioner is unwilling to abide by the agreement of marriage which he executed with the informant/ respondent No.2. 7. Per contra, Mr. Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent submits that from the material available in the case diary especially the statement of of the victim girl recorded by the Investigating Officer under section 183 of BNSS, 2023, it is evident that there was a love affair between the victim girl and the accused/petitioner and that she has also stated that there was sexual relationship between them on the assurance of marriage by the accused/petitioner. 8. Mr. A. Roshid, learned counsel appearing for the informant/ respondent No.2 submits that there being allegation of sexual relationship having been committed by the accused/petitioner upon the victim girl by deceiving her to believe that he will marry her disentitles the prayer of anticipatory bail as prayed for in the instant petition. He further submits that the accused/petitioner and his family having backed off from the agreement executed between both the families for the marriage of the accused/petitioner and the victim girl, the bail prayer ought to be rejected. 9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and have perused the material available on record including the case diary. Page No.# 5/7 10. It appears from the material available on record that the statement of the victim girl has been recorded. It further appears that the victim girl admits that there was love relationship between her and the accused/petitioner and on the promise of the accused/petitioner that he will marry her, she agreed to have sexual relationship with him. It further appears that at the time of occurrence, the accused/petitioner was about 18 years and the victim girl was of about 16 years. It further appears that the victim girl is about 17 years 9 months as on date. It further appears that there was an agreement between the families of both victim girl and the accused/petitioner for agreeing to solemnize their marriage upon their attaining majority. It further appears that later on the family of the accused/petitioner has refused to solemnize the marriage of the victim girl with the accused/petitioner. It further appears that the medical report available in the case diary does not indicate any sign of violence being committed in the body of the victim girl nor indicates any sign of recent sexual intercourse. 11. Be that as it may, this Court is not convicting the accused/petitioner at this stage. This Court is only considering whether to grant anticipatory bail to the accused/petitioner or not. Undoubtedly, the offence is serious. However, considering the age of both the victim girl as well as the accused/petitioner and the fact that there was a love relationship between the two and there was an agreement between the families for solemnizing their marriage upon attaining majority which was later broken by the accused/petitioner’s family and also that there is no adverse criminal antecedent against Page No.# 6/7 the accused/petitioner available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be justified. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the accused/petitioner named above, shall be released on pre-arrest bail in connection with the above noted case, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject, of course, to the following conditions:- i) That the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days, failing which on and from the 11th day, the pre-arrest bail order shall have no force; ii) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any persons acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer. iii) That the petitioner shall refrain from committing any similar offences in future of which he is accused or suspected of commission. 13. Resultantly, the anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. 14. It is needless to be clarified that any observation made hereinabove, is purely for considering whether to grant anticipatory bail Page No.# 7/7 or not and such observation shall not be binding upon the trial Court. JUDGE Comparing Assistant