Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010144192026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1621/2026 SHAHIJAL ISLAM alias SOHIJUL HOQUE SON OF KACHUMUDDIN SHEIKH VILLAGE BISHDOBA PS PANBARI DISTRICT CHIRANG, ASSAM, PIN-783391 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:MANJUARA BEGUM W/O KHUDNABARI P.S. SORBHOG DIST. BARPETA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A Z AHMED, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. SURAJIT DAS BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 02.09.2026 1. Heard learned Counsel Mr.A.Z.Ahmed for the petitioner Shahijal Islam @ Sohijul Hoque who has filed this application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for pre-arrest bail apprehending arrest in connection with Page No.# 2/4 Sorbhog PS Case No. 98/2024 under Section 366(A)/34 of the IPC r/w Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 2. Learned Addl.Public Prosecutor Mr.K.Baishya is present for the State respondent No.1 and learned Amicus Curiae Mr. S. Das is present for the respondent No.2. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had kidnapped the minor victim ‘X’ and committed sexual assault on her. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the incident occurred on 30.04.2024 and the FIR was lodged after being fabricated much later on 19.07.2024. It is submitted that the victim was around 17 years of age at the time of the incident and the petitioner was around 20 years of age. The petitioner and the victim had a love relationship and the petitioner could not marry the victim as he was below 20 years of age and the victim was a minor at the time of the incident. It is further submitted that the victim had eloped with the petitioner on her own volition as they had a love affair. The petitioner was unable to marry the victim and then the petitioner's parents handed over the victim to the police. There were several discussions to settle the marriage between the petitioner and the victim but somehow the discussions did not materialize as the petitioner's family members disagreed to get the petitioner married to the victim. A false case has been slammed against the petitioner. 5. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the learned Amicus Curiae have raised objection against the petition with prayer for bail. It is submitted that earlier after perusal of the Case Dairy, bail petition was rejected. 6. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection. 7. I have also scrutinized the case diary. It is submitted that this bail petition Page No.# 3/4 is filed on change of circumstances. There is no apprehension of threat to the victim anymore. The victim is already married to another person. It is also submitted that the petitioner is willing to co-operate with the investigation and shall abide by any stringent bail conditions if imposed upon him. 8. Considering the entire aspect of the matter and without bringing into record the merits of the case, it appears that anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner. 9. Considering all aspects, prayer for pre-arrest bail is allowed. 10. The petitioner named above in the event of his arrest shall be enlarged on pre-arrest bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- with a suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority subject to the following conditions: i) The petitioner shall appear before the I.O. within one week and shall co-operate with the investigation, ii) The petitioner shall refrain from such activities of which he is alleged, iii) The petitioner shall not exercise threats to the victim or any witnesses and iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission. 11. On breach of any of the above conditions, pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner shall automatically stand cancelled. 12. In terms of the above observations, the anticipatory bail application Page No.# 4/4 stands disposed of. 13. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant