Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010156382026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1763/2026 MD SIRAJUL ISLAM SON OF LATE HASSEN ALI, RESIDENT OF NO. 1 GAYAN GAON, P.S. DHING, DISTRICT NAGAON, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N J DUTTA, IMDADUL ISLAM,MR A BASUMATARY,MR. M M ZAMAN,MR N AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS S S ZIA(INFORMANT) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 14.09.2026 Heard Mr. NJ Dutta, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Also heard Ms. SS Gia, learned Counsel for the informant. 2. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for pre-arrest bail in connection with Dhing P.S. Case No. 133/2026 registered under Sections 331(4)/64(1) of BNS, 2023. The FIR in connection with which the petitioner is apprehending arrest was lodged on 27.05.2026 by the victim herself stating inter alia that on 21.05.2026 at around 02:00 am, while her husband was not at home, the petitioner cut the wall of her house and by opening the door entered the house when she was sleeping with her young child. She further stated that the petitioner lifted her dress and forced her to do something bad and that she grabbed the petitioner and slapped him on his private parts and that the accused fled away. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the police on completion of the investigation submitted charge sheet during pendency of the instant bail application wherein the petitioner was arrayed as an accused person and charges were made against the accused person for the offence of rape along with others. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the bare perusal of the FIR shows that the instant case is not under Section 63 of the BNSS and at best, the charges can be under Section 62 of BNS, i.e. an attempt to commit rape and by applying the law, he submits that the maximum punishment for the said offence would be 7 years and as such, the petitioner should have been given a notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS, which however, Page No.# 3/4 was not done in the instant case. He also submits that in the year 2024, an FIR as well as the complaint case was lodged by the petitioner against the informant as well as others for grabbing his plot of land. 4. Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on perusal of the Case Diary submits that the victim in her statement before the Magistrate had stated in clear terms that the petitioner entered her house by breaking the door and tried to commit rape upon her but could not because of the hue and cry raised by the victim. He further submits that there are independent witnesses, who had stated that upon hearing hue and cry when they reached, they found the wall of the house broken. 5. The learned Counsel for the informant, Ms. S.S. Gia, also supports the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and further submits that the offence of attempt to rape is writ large in the FIR and as such she objects to grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, more so, in view of the fact that there was a rivalry between the petitioner and the informant due to the previous FIR lodged by the petitioner in the year 2024, this Court deems it fit to enlarge the petitioner on pre arrest bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court, under the following conditions: i) the petitioner will appear before the Trial Court within a period of 10 days from the date of the order. ii) the petitioner will appear before the Trial Court as and when called for. iii) the petitioner will not approach the informant at any point of time. iv) the petitioner will not hamper, tamper with the evidence, neither Page No.# 4/4 influence the witnesses connected with the case. v) the petitioner will not leave the place of jurisdiction without the permission of the Trial Court. 7. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant