Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010146062026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1593/2026 ANOWAR HUSSAIN AND 2 ORS. S/O ABDUL KARIM, VILLAGE LAODONG, P.O. MOHANPUR, P.S. UDALGURI, DISTRICT UDALGURI, ASSAM 784509 2: ANOWARA BEGUM W/O ABDUL KARIMVILLAGE LAODONGP.O. MOHANPURP.S. UDALGURIDISTRICT UDALGURIASSAM 784509 3: ABDUL KARIM S/O LATE MAYEN SHEIKHVILLAGE LAODONGP.O. MOHANPURP.S. UDALGURIDISTRICT UDALGURIASSAM 78450 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A N IQBAL, MR S MUKTAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date :31.07.2026 Heard Mr. S. Muktar, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. Page No.# 2/4 2. Apprehending arrest in connection with Udalguri P.S. Case No. 49/2026, under Sections 61(2)/87/64/318/74/351/3(5) of the BNS, 2023, this application under Section 482, BNSS is preferred by three applicants, namely, Anowar Hussain, Anowara Begum and Abdul Karim, 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 Smt. X (name withheld) on 07.07.2026. The essence of allegation against the applicant No. 1 is that he was in relationship with the informant and with false promise of marriage, he sexually exploited her and also committed rape upon her. Further, the essence of allegation against the applicant Nos. 2 and 3, who are the mother and father, respectively, of the applicant No. 1 is that they had assaulted and abused the informant in their house. 4. Mr. Muktar, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 had been granted the privilege of interim pre-arrest bail, vide order dated 20.07.2026, and pursuant to the said order, they appeared before the I.O. and their statements had also been recorded, and that they have been cooperating with the investigating agency, and therefore, Mr. Muktar has contended that the interim order, dated 20.07.2026, may be made absolute in the same terms and conditions. 4.1. In respect of applicant No. 1, Mr. Muktar submits that there was a relationship between the applicant No. 1 with the informant and though it was cordial at first, subsequently discord surfaced between them, and thereafter, the informant had lodged the FIR against the applicants making some allegations. He also submits that the applicant No. 1 is ready to cooperate with the investigating agency, and therefore, he has contended to allow the application. Page No.# 3/4 5. On the other hand, Mr. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary before this Court and submits that though custodial interrogation of the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 may not be required, yet the I.O. has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the applicant No. 1, and that the informant has also implicated the applicant No. 1 in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023, and investigation is going on, and under such circumstances, he has contended to dismiss the prayer in respect of applicant No. 1. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also perused the case diary with the assistance of Mr. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 7. In view of the materials collected so far in the case diary against the applicant Nos. 2 and 3, and in view of the cooperation being extended by them to the investigating agency, this Court is of the view that their custodial interrogation, in the interest of investigation, seems to be not warranted here in this case. 8. Accordingly, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant Nos. 2 and 3, vide order dated 20.07.2026, is hereby made absolute in the same terms and conditions. 9. However, considering the materials collected so far in the case diary, especially the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023, and also considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the stage of investigation, 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 applicant No. 1. And Page No.# 4/4 accordingly, this application, so far it relates to the applicant No. 1, stands dismissed. 10. Case diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant