Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010062012025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/718/2025 RAHMAT ALI AND 2 ORS. S/O SIDDIQUE ALI R/O VILL-KALA PAKANI PT.II, P.O.A.M.CO. ROAD, P.S.DHUBRI, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783331 2: SAIBUDDIN ALIAS SAHABUDDIN S/O SIDDIQUE ALI R/O VILL-KALA PAKANI PT.II P.O.A.M.CO. ROAD P.S.DHUBRI DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783331 3: OJUFA BIBI W/O RAHMAT ALI R/O VILL-KALA PAKANI PT.II P.O.A.M.CO. ROAD P.S.DHUBRI DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-78333 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Page No.# 2/5 2:XXX D/O LATE ABED ALI VILL-KALA PAKANI PT.II P.S. DHUBRI DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-78333 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A ROSHID, MS. T BEGUM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ (R-2),MR. SURAJIT DAS(R- 2),MR. A BISWAS, Legal Aid Counsel BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 29.04.2025. Heard Mr. A. Roshid, learned counsel for the applicants; Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, respondent No. 1; and Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/informant. Also heard Mr. A. Biswas, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2/informant. 2. Apprehending arrest in connection with Dhubri P.S. Case No. 376/2024, under Sections 120(B)/376/307 of the IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, this application under Section 482 of the BNSS, is preferred by applicants namely, Rahmat Ali; Saibuddin @ Sahabuddin; and Ojufa Bibi for grant of pre-arrest bail. 3. It is to be note here that the said case has been registered on the basis of one FIR, lodged by the informant cum victim, namely, Smti X (name withheld) on 18.10.2024. Page No.# 3/5 4. The essence of allegation in the FIR dated 18.10.2024, is that in the year 2023, one Rustom Ali developed relationship with her while she was 17 years old and thereafter, committed sexual intercourse with her and also taken her to his house and used to commit rape upon her on several occasions. Thereafter, he refused to marry her. Then, on 22.07.2023, he again attempted to commit rape upon her and upon refusal, his family members, namely, Rahmat Ali; Saibuddin; Ojufa Bibi; and Siddique Ali, assaulted her and injured her seriously and also tried to kill her by hanging, but, the neighbors rescued her. Thereafter, they got her admitted at Dhubri Medical College and Hospital for treatment mentioning her age as 25 years. 5. Mr. Roshid, learned counsel for the applicants submits that this is the second pre-arrest bail application preferred by the applicants and the earlier one, being AB No. 10/2025, was dismissed by this court vide order dated 04.02.2025, after perusing the case diary. Mr. Roshid further submits that the present applicants are innocent and no way involved with the offence alleged in the FIR and that they are the father, brother and mother respectively of the main accused. Mr. Roshid further submits that Section 6 of the POCSO Act is not attracted against them though the case has been registered under the said Section. Mr. Roshid also submits that they are ready to face trial and will appear before the learned trial court regularly. Under such circumstances, it is contended to allow the petition. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that no fresh ground has been assigned for filing this second pre-arrest bail application and all the aspects were considered earlier by this court while rejecting the first pre-arrest bail application and that there is no change of Page No.# 4/5 circumstances in favour of the applicants. Mr. Baishya further submits that the offences are serious in nature and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 7. Whereas, Mr. Biswas, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the informant submits that the FIR as well as the medical documents of the victim girl and the other documents placed on record, clearly shows the complicity of the present applicants with the offence alleged in the FIR. Mr. Biswas further submits that the offences are serious in nature and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 8. Whereas, Mr. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/informant submits that this second pre-arrest bail application is not maintainable in view of the fact that no change of circumstances is shown by the applicant in their favour after dismissal of the first application. Mr. Das further submits that there are materials against the present applicants to show their complicity with the offence alleged in the FIR and the same were duly been taken note of by this court while rejecting the first pre-arrest bail application. Therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 9. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the scanned copy of the record received from the learned trial court along with the status report dated 11.04.2025. 10. It appears that during investigation, the IO has collected the transfer/leaving certificate of the victim girl, which indicates her date of birth as 25.08.2005. The statement of the victim girl, available on the record of the Page No.# 5/5 learned trial court, indicates that the occurrence took place in the month of January, 2023 and at the relevant point of time, she had not completed 18 years. It further appears that the IO has collected sufficient materials in support of the allegations made in the FIR. The Medical report issued by the Dhubri Medical College also supports the allegations made in the FIR. It also appears that after completion of the investigation, the IO has laid charge sheet against the present applicants to stand the trial in the court, under Section 120(B)/307 of the IPC. Admittedly, also no new ground has been assigned for filing this second pre-arrest bail application after rejection of the first one. 11. The offences are also serious in nature and besides, the applicants are absconding. Under such given facts and circumstances, this court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the privilege of pre-arrest bail can be extended to the applicants and therefore, the same is dismissed. 12. However, the liberty is granted to the applicants to approach the learned trial court by filing appropriate petition and in the event of filing such an application, the learned trial court shall consider the same in accordance with law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant