Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010143172026 2026:GAU-AS:11375 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1573/2026 SRI HAMIDUL MONDAL S/O LATE ROBI ALI MONDAL R/O VILL GHORAMARA, PO- RAINADABRI P.S. KOKRAJHAR, DIST KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 783370. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:RAHMAN ALI SHEIKH S/O LATE JOYNAL SHEIKH R/O VILL- GHORAMARA P.O. RAINADABRI P.S. KOKRAJHAR DIST. KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN-78337 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS D DAS, MS K TAYE Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. R BARUAH (AMICUS CURIAE-R2),N M ALI(R2),MR H A AHMED(R2) BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 12.08.2026 Heard Ms. D. Das, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, Page No.# 2/4 learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent No.1 and Ms. R. Baruah, learned amicus curiae appearing for the respondent No.2. 2. This application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is preferred by the applicant, namely, Hamidul Mondal, who has been apprehending arrest in connection with Kokrajhar P.S. Case No.98/2026, under Section 78(2)/74/75(2)/329(3) of BNS, 2023, read with Section 8/12 of the POCSO Act, 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 Abdul Ali Sheikh (actual name withheld), on 28.06.2026. The essence of allegation, made in the FIR, dated 28.06.2026, against the present applicant is that he used to annoy the daughter of the informant while she used to go to her college, by giving indecent gesture, and on 23.06.2026, at about 6:00 a.m., while his daughter was washing her hands and face near the hand-pump, the applicant caught hold of her from behind and kissed her and also touched on her private parts and when his daughter raised hue and cry, the applicant fled away. 4. Ms. Das, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the applicant is innocent and no way involved with the offence alleged in the FIR and that there is delay of 6 days in lodging the FIR and no explanation is offered for the same and in support of her submission, she has referred to a decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Jyotishpeethadheeshwar and others vs. State of U.P. and orders, MANU/UP/0261/2026. She also submits that after the incident, the informant called a village meeting and on 24.06.2026 demanded a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from the applicant and that the applicant is entitled to some amount from the informant towards payment for decoration and when he demanded the same, the informant lodged the FIR against him and that the applicant is ready to cooperate with the investigating agency and will appear before the I.O. as and when directed and therefore, she has contended to allow this application. Page No.# 3/4 5. Per contra, Mr. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, has produced the case diary before this Court and submits that in the statement under Section 180 and 183 of the BNSS, 2023, the victim girl has clearly implicated the applicant with the offence alleged in the FIR and that the investigation is going on and he also pointed it out that last several months he used to annoy the victim girl while she used to go to her college and also he has been intimidating her and under such circumstances, he has contended to dismiss the petition. 6. Ms. Baruah, the learned amicus curiae appearing for the respondent No.2 also opposed the petition on the ground that the allegations are serious in nature and the victim has clearly implicated the applicant with the offence alleged in the FIR, and besides he has been intimidating the victim. 7. Having heard the submission 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 P.P. 8. It appears that the I.O. has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the present applicant, and the investigation is going on. It also appears that the applicant has been threatening the victim to kill her and her father, the informant of this case. 9. This Court has gone through the decision referred by Ms. Das and also considered the argument advanced by her in respect of delay in lodging the FIR. But, this Court is of the view that such delay cannot provide a ground for extending the privilege of pre-arrest bail when there is sufficient material to suggest commission of the offence and also in respect of intimidation to the victim and the informant, by the applicant, and when the informant has explained the ground in his statement under Section 180 BNSS, 2023. 10. Under the given facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that this is Page No.# 4/4 not a fit case where the privilege of pre-arrest bail can be extended to the applicant and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. 11. Case diary be returned. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE