Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010083982026 2026:GAU-AS:13068 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/881/2026 ABU KAUSAR SON OF AMDADUL ISLAM RESIDENT OF JORIBOR P.O. PHALIHAMARI PATHER P.S. BHURAGAON, DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782127 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:AINUL HOQUE SON OF ABUL HUSSAIN R/O HATILORUA PATHER P.O. AND P.S. BHURAGAON DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM PIN-782127. 3:TAIJUL ISLAM SON OF LATE AYED ALI RESIDENT OF MOHMARI P.O. TENGAGURI P.S. LAHARIGHAT DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM PIN-78212 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K HUSSAIN, MR. M ALOM,MS. F H AHMED,U U Page No.# 2/5 KHAN,MRS. S Y AHMED,MR. A AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR J C BORAH(R2),B DAS(R3),MR. A M AHMED(R3) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 08.09.2026 Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam and Mr. J. C. Borah, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 whereby the petitioner, namely, Abu Kausar is seeking Anticipatory Bail apprehending arrest in connection with an FIR, which is registered as Laharighat Police Station Case No. 99/2025 registered under Sections 61(2)/142/3(5) of BNS added Section 64(1)/65(1) of BNS, 2023 read with Section 4/6 of POCSO Act, 2012. 3. On 13.05.2025 the informant that is the father of the victim lodged a written FIR to the effect that on 05.05.2025 when his minor daughter was returning from her school to her house, the FIR named accused persons namely No.1 Kausar, No.2 Abu Bakkar Siddik and No.3 Rashidul Islam kidnapped her with the help of another girl named therein. Later on 06.05.2025 at about 12 noon they dropped the victim near the informant's house. Since the one informant was working at Kerala, the FIR could not be lodged in time. 4. One of the aforesaid named accused persons namely Rashidul Islam was arrested, but another co-accused Abu Bakkar Siddik was granted pre-arrest bail by order dated 29.01.2026 in AB No. 2025/2025 by co-ordinate Bench. Page No.# 3/5 5. A previous pre-arrest bail application on behalf of the present petitioner was rejected by order dated 08-04-2026 in AB/176/2026. 6. It would appear on a perusal of the record that the allegation against the aforesaid co-accused Abu Bakkar Siddik is in relation to alleged commission of sexual assault against the victim of the present case that is the daughter of the informant. However, the allegation as revealed by the statements of the victims recorded under Section 183 BNSS reveals that the allegation as against the present petitioner Abu Kausar is regard to alleged commission of rape/penetrative sexual assault upon another victim who has been named in the FIR lodged by the informant and is the class friend of the daughter of the informant. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no mention of any offence of rape/penetrative sexual assault having been committed by the present petitioner in the FIR. 8. Per contra, the learned Additional P.P has submitted that the charges against the petitioner are of a grave nature and the statements of the both the victims clearly reveal the commission of rape/penetrative sexual assault by the present petitioner as well against a minor girl and moreover it was the present petitioner who was known to the victims and who had enticed away the two minor girls on his motorcycle pursuant to a pre-existing conspiracy with the other accused persons whereafter two of the accused committed rape/penetrative sexual assault upon the victims. 9. Upon the perusal of the material on record including the statements of the victims recorded before the Magistrate under Section 183 CrPC, it is seen Page No.# 4/5 that both the minor girls had squarely implicated the present petitioner for the offence of commission of rape/penetrative sexual assault against the respective victims. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No.3, one Taizul Islam, father of one of the victims, has sworn an affidavit before the Notary public stating that the present accused Abu Kausar did nothing with his daughter on the date of the alleged occurrence and therefore, he did not lodge any ejahar in respect of the same. It is further stated that it was the informant of the case who threatened and persuaded him and his daughter to give statement before the Magistrate against the accused person and that he has no objection if the Court granted bail to the petitioner herein. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the informant submits that the victim had voluntarily gone with the accused and that the informant has no objection to the grant of bail to the petitioner. The informant of the case Ainul Hoque is arrayed as respondent No. 2 herein and the aforesaid affidavit has been sworn by the respondent No. 3 Taizul Islam. 12. As already noted it is not only the daughter of the respondent No.3 but also the daughter of the informant, who in their statement recorded under Section 183 before the Magistrate had squarely implicated the petitioner. The stand taken by the respondent No.3 by swearing the aforesaid affidavit appears to have been an afterthought. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 had vehemently opposed the prayer for bail on the earlier occasion as reflected in the order dated 08.04.2026 in AB/176/2026. Whatever stand is taken by the victims/witnesses at the Trial would have their own consequences, but at Page No.# 5/5 present it cannot be said in the face of the materials available in the statements of the victims that a case for grant of the privilege of pre-arrest bill is made out, the victims being minors. Moreover the dependent of the affidavit that is respondent No. 3 was not present at the place of occurrence to depose of his own knowledge as to what had happened and the victim has not retracted her statement as of now. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the instant petition and accordingly the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner is rejected at this stage. 13. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail petition is disposed of. 14. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant