Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010117432026 2026:GAU-AS:10343 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1295/2026 HACHEM ALI AND ANR S/O BENAR UDDIN, 2: AMJAD HUSSAIN S/O HACHEM ALI BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF DIGANI SAWPUR SAALPUR KALGACHIYA P.O. SAUPUR DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN - 781319.(THE PETITIONER NO. 2 IS MINOR TO BE REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER PETITIONER NO. 1 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM 2:RAHAM ALI R/O KAPALKATA SONAPUR P.S. KHETRI DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN-78240 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R BORUAH, MR R BORAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, M ARIF (R2),MR. MASUM ALAM (R2),MR B M DEKA (R2) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 28.07.2026 Heard Mr. R. Boruah, learned counsel for the applicants; Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1; and Mr. B.M. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. Apprehending arrest in connection with All Women PS Case No. 17/2026, under Sections 15(2)/6 of the POCSO Act read with Section 66E/67b of the IT Act, this application under Section 482 of the BNSS, is preferred by applicants namely, Hachem Ali and Amjad Hussain, for grant of pre-arrest bail. 3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by one Rahom Ali. 3.1. The essence of allegation, against the applicants, is that Amjad Ali (applicant No. 2), has a relationship with the daughter of the informant, aged about 17 years and he had sexual intercourse with her and recorded a video of the same. The applicant No. 1, the father of Amjad Ali (applicant No. 2), had proposed her to get married with the applicant No. 2 and thereafter, they started blackmailing her and also uploaded the video in the social media. 4. Mr. Boruah, learned counsel for the applicants, submits that the applicant No. 2 has already been arrested and therefore, he is pressing this application only in respect of applicant No. 1. Mr. Boruah further submits that the applicant No. 1 is innocent and no way involved with the offence alleged in the FIR and that he is ready to cooperate with the investigating agency and therefore, it is contended to allow the application. Page No.# 3/4 5. Per-contra, Mr. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1, by producing the case diary before this Court, submits that the materials collected so far in the case diary reveal no complicity of the applicant No. 1 with the offence alleged in the FIR. 6. Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, however, opposed the application and submits that the applicant No. 1 had helped the applicant No. 2 in committing the offence and therefore, he has contended to dismiss this application. 7. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the application as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the case diary produced before this Court, with the assistance of learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 8. Having gone through the case diary, especially the statement of the victim girl, recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, this Court finds that the materials collected so far in the case diary are grossly inadequate to show the complicity of the applicant No. 1 with the offence alleged in the FIR. 9. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that further custodial interrogation of the applicant No. 1 seems to be unwarranted, in this case. 10. Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the applicant No. 1, namely Hachem Ali, in connection with the All Women PS Case No. 17/2026, he shall be enlarged on pre-arrest bail, on his executing a bond of Rs. 25,000/- only, with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. 11. The above privilege is, however, subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by Page No.# 4/4 the Investigating Officer as and when directed; (ii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (iii) that the applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, without prior permission. 12. In terms of this AB stands disposed of. 13. The case diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant