Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010058622025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/637/2025 SALAM ALI @ ABDUL SAMAD SK S/O. LT. PIRU MUNSHI @ SIRAJ ALI MUNSHI, R/O- UJANPETLA PART-1, P/S- TAMARHAT, DIST- DHUBRI,ASSAM-783332 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR J I MONDAL, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 29.04.2025 1. Heard Mr. M. A. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam who prays for some more time for producing the case diary. 2. This application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Salam Ali @ Abdul Samad Sk, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Tamarhat P.S. Case No. 09/2025 under Sections Page No.# 2/4 329(3)/64/62 of the BNS. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 15.01.2025, the victim woman had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Tamarhat Police Station, inter alia, alleging that on 09.01.2025 at about 10:00 PM, when her husband was not at her home and she went outside to attend the call of nature. After she returned back to the room, the present petitioner hugged her from behind and tried to rape her. However, due to her shouting, the petitioner released her and ran away. It is stated in the FIR that the husband of the informant, who works as a mason at Guwahati and it was only when he came back to the home, the FIR was lodged, and therefore the delay was caused. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case by the victim woman. He submits that on the date of the alleged incident, the petitioner went to the house of the victim and met her husband from whom he demanded back Rs.40,000/- which the husband of the first informant took from the present petitioner for hiring labourers in the brick klin. However, the husband refused to return the money and there was an altercation between them over the return of the money. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for wrecking vengeance, the present FIR has been lodged falsely against the present petitioner. He also submits that in the FIR, the only accusation is hugging the victim woman, and after she made hue and cry, it is alleged that the petitioner released her and thus he submits that no rape has been committed in this case. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary of Tamarhat P.S. Case No. 09/2025 and has fairly Page No.# 3/4 submitted that though in the FIR, the victim has stated that the present petitioner hugged her from behind and tried to rape her but during the investigation, in her statement, made under Section 183 of the BNSS, she has categorically stated that she was raped by the present petitioner and, therefore, he opposes the grant of bail to the present petitioner. He also submits that one of the witnesses has also stated that she heard hue and cry from the residence of the victim woman on the date of alleged incident. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and have perused the materials available on record. 8. On perusal of the records, it appears that though the reason for delay the filing of the FIR has been mentioned as the absence of her husband of the victim at the residence, however, it appears that the FIR has been lodged not by the husband of the victim woman but the victim herself. 9. It also appears that though in the FIR, the allegations have been made to the effect that the present petitioner had hugged the victim woman from behind and attempted to rape her. However, in the statement made under Section 183 of the BNSS, the victim woman had vividly described the offence of rape which was committed by the present petitioner on her. The version of the victim woman in the FIR as well as in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS does not tally. 10. At this stage, the veracity of submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was an altercation between the husband of the victim and the petitioner regarding the demanding back of Rs.40,000/- from her husband cannot be ascertained due to availability of materials on record. However, considering the fact that the statement of the victim woman has Page No.# 4/4 already been recorded and she has also been medically examined (during which no indication of subjecting her of recent sexual intercourse was there), if the petitioner cooperates in the investigation, his custodial detention may not be necessary for fair completion of the investigation. 11. Hence, the above named petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer of Tamarhat P.S. Case No. 09/2025 within a period of seven days from the date of this order and co-operate in the investigation. If he does so within the stipulated period of time, in the event of his arrest, in connection with Tamarhat P.S. Case No. 09/2025, he shall be allowed to go on bail of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the arresting authority with following conditions:- (i) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any persons who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts of the case before the Investigating Officer; (ii) That the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation; 12. With the above observation, this anticipatory bail application is accordingly disposed of. 13. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant