Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010062782025 2025:GAU-AS:6416 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/723/2025 JAMAL UDDIN SEKH @ MD JAMALUDDIN SEIKH SON OF LT MULUK CHAN SEIKH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GARUBANDHA, P.O. AND P.S. JAKHALABANDHA, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782136 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P BHARDWAJ, MS. B DEVI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 21.05.2025 1. Heard Ms. B. Devi, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. 2. This application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Page No.# 2/4 Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Jamal Uddin Sekh@Md. Jamaluddin Seikh, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Jakhalabandha P.S. Case No. 25/2025, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 09.03.2025, the victim-woman had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of Jakhalabandha police station, inter alia, alleging that after death of her husband, the petitioner had raped her about an year prior to the lodging of the FIR in the month of March, 2024. 4. It is also stated in the FIR that the petitioner is the elder brother of the deceased husband and he committed rape on her and threatened her not to disclose the fact to anyone. 5. It is also stated in the FIR that the first informant delivered a child, who was 1(one) month old at the date of lodging of the FIR, however, the petitioner is refusing to accept the informant and her child as his own and therefore, FIR has been lodged. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the FIR are not true. She submits that the FIR has been lodged after a gap of almost 1(one) year, only after the birth of the child of the informant, which shows that even if it is assumed that there is some relationship between the victim and the petitioner has to be consensual in nature. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner is ready to cooperate in the investigation. Page No.# 3/4 8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that the victim woman in her statement recorded under Section 183 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 had implicated the present petitioner of having committed rape on her. 9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also submitted that there are materials in the Case Diary, which indicates that the victim woman has informed the other villagers about the incident and the villagers proposed to organize a village meeting, however, the same could not be held due to non-cooperation of the present petitioner. 10. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if at this stage the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, there is every likelihood of the petitioner trying to influence the victim woman and hampering the course of investigation. 11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and have perused the Case Diary of Jakhalabandha P.S. Case No. 25/2025. 12. In this case it is apparent from the record that the FIR has been lodged after a gap of almost 1(one) year from the date of alleged offence and the only reason mentioned for lodging of the FIR after such a delay is non-acceptance of the responsibility of the child of the victim woman by the petitioner. 13. Though the victim woman has implicating the petitioner in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Page No.# 4/4 Sanhita, 2023, however, apart from her statement at the present stage, there is no other material and considering the fact that the FIR has been lodged after a gap of more than 1(one) year without any proper justification, this Court is inclined to grant the benefit of favourable order under Section 482 to the petitioner, and as if he co-operates in the investigation, his custodial detention may not be necessary. 14. 14. In view of the above, the above-named petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer of Jakhalabandha P.S. Case No. 25/2025 within a period of 7(seven) days of the date of this order and cooperate in the investigation. If he does so within the stipulated period of time, in the event of his arrest in connection with the above-noted case, he shall be allowed to go on bail of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with a suitable surety of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the arresting authority with following conditions:- (i) the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation; and (ii) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to the informant or to any other persons who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such persons from disclosing such facts before the Investigating Officer or to any Court. 15. Send back the Case Diary. 16. This anticipatory bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant