Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010051612025 2025:GAU-AS:5704 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/597/2025 BOKKAR ALI @ ABU BAKKAR SIDDIQUE AND ANR S/O- IMAN ALI, R/O- VILLAGE - PANBARI (ALOMGANJ PT-VIII) P.S- GAURIPUR, DISTRICT- DHUBRI, ASSAM, 2: KASHEM ALI S/O MOKSED ALI R/O VILL- SHIYALERVITA P.S. FAKIRGANJ DIST. DHUBRI ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SHUBAHAN ALI S/O LATE DARUG ALI R/O VILL-TUP PARA JHAOPARA PART-I P.S. GAURIPUR DIST. DHUBRI ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S MUNIR, MS. N.A. BEGUM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR H RAHMAN (R-2),R BEGUM(R-2),MR. J AHMED(R-2) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 08.05.2025 Heard Mr. S. Munir, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1 and Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioners, who are apprehending arrest in connection with Gauripur P.S. Case No. 312/2024, under Sections 61(2)/137(2)/143(2) of BNS added Section 64(1)/127(2) of BNS read with Section 4 of POCSO Act. Case Diary has been received and I have perused the same. It is submitted by Mr. Munir, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the F.I.R. is lodged with some false and concocted allegation against the present accused/petitioners along with some others. The actual fact of the case is that the victim went to Rajasthan for her employment and that she accompanied these 2 (two) petitioners to Rajasthan wherein she was employed in the house of one person and for her employment, advance amount was also paid to her parents. But, when the victim refused to stay there, the owner of the house asked to return back his advance money and for that there was a dispute and thereafter with all the allegations, the F.I.R. has been lodged against the Page No.# 3/4 petitioners along with others. As per the allegation, the victim was missing from her house on 24.09.2024, but there is no explanation made in the F.I.R. which was lodged on 01.10.2024 with a delay of 6 (six) days. In the same time, there is also no missing report lodged by the parents of the victim after her missing. Accordingly, Mr. Munir submitted that the present accused/petitioners have not committed any such offence as alleged in the F.I.R. and with the consent of the parents as well as the victim, she was taken to Rajasthan only for her employment. However, the petitioners are ready and willing to co-operate the I.O. in further investigation of this case if they are granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. Mr. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted in this regard that admittedly the victim girl is a minor of 14 years of age and she implicated both the petitioners in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS. From her statement, it is seen that she was taken by these 2 (two) petitioners and then she was sold to one Kamala, who thereafter sold her to another person, namely, Jitendra Chandra Kumar, at Haryana where she was sexually exploited and the house owner had also physical relationship with her forcibly. But somehow the victim managed to inform her family members and she was brought back to the house of said Kamala and thereafter she was recovered by her brothers. He accordingly submitted that the case is of serious in nature where human trafficking is involved and therefore he raised objection and submitted that the custodial interrogation of the present accused/petitioners will be required for the purpose of just and proper investigation. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2, Page No.# 4/4 submitted in this regard that the present accused/petitioners are the main culprits who sold the minor girl to one person at Rajasthan/Haryana and they are behind the entire crime of the case. He also submitted that this is a serious kind of allegation and therefore the custodial interrogation of the present petitioners will be required to know the actual facts of the case. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, materials available in the Case Diary, more particularly, the statement made by the victim under Section 183 BNSS, and other aspects of the case, viz-a-viz the gravity of the offence and the role of the present petitioners in the entire crime, I do not find it a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present petitioners and hence the same stands rejected. In terms of above, this anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. The Case Diary be sent back. JUDGE Comparing Assistant