Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010112412026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1210/2026 SADIK HUSSAIN AHMED S/O-ABADUR RAHMAN AHMED R/O BAURIKANDI PARTII P.S.- KACHUDARAM DIST CACHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:XXXX XXXX TO BE REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER MIZANUL HOQUE MAZUMDER D/O- MIZANUL HOQUE MAZUMDER R/O-VILL-BAURIKANDI PART-II P.O.- HATIKHAL P.S.-KACHUDARAM DIST.-CACHAR ASSAM 78811 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR N A MAZARBHUIYA, A S CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. S. DEY (R2),MS. N.A. LASKAR (R2),MR. N H BARBHUIYA (R2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 27 .0 7 . 2026 Heard Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by N.A. Mazarbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.K. Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent. Also heard Mr. N.H. Laskar, Page No.# 2/3 learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. This application has been filed by the petitioner namely, Sadik Hussain Ahmed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Kachudaram P.S. Case No. 14/2026, registered under Sections 74/ 75(2)/ 304(2) of the BNS, 2023, read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act. 3. The case diary as called for has been received and perused. 4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations made in the FIR are false and fabricated and with reference to the contents of the instant bail application, it is submitted that it is because of refusal of the father of the petitioner to sell a plot of land to father of the complainant, that this false FIR has been lodged. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/ informant submits that the petitioner alongwith other co-accused persons have been harassing the complainant because of which her mother had to accompany her while going for tuition and even after the incident, the accused persons have been threatening the complainant’s family members to withdraw the case. 6. On perusal of the C.D. there appears to be sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner regarding false implication does not explain as to why the co-accused has also been named in the FIR. 7. Having regard to the above, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, bail application stands dismissed. Page No.# 3/3 9. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant