Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010198052026 2026:GAU-AS:13306 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2195/2026 ABU HAFIZ SK ALIAS HABEZ ALI ASALI HABEZ, S/O SAMSUL HOQUE, R/O VILLAGE BEKARDoba, SONAPUR, P.S. MANKACHAR, DISTRICT SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 783135 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M ISLAM, MS A KHATUN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 11.09.2026 Heard Mr. M. Islam, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. J. Baruah, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for State of Assam. 2. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for pre-arrest bail in Page No.# 2/4 connection with PRC No. 496/2024, registered under Sections 366A and 343 of the IPC, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Salmara- Mankachar. 3. The FIR, in connection with which the petitioner apprehends arrest, was lodged on 14.03.2024 by the mother of the victim, stating, inter alia, that on 08.03.2024, at about 3:45 p.m., the petitioner, in furtherance of a conspiracy with the other accused persons, kidnapped her minor daughter by alluring her in various ways from the road and thereafter confined her at an unknown place. Upon completion of the investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the petitioner on 31.05.2024. It is stated in the said charge-sheet that the victim, in her statement recorded by the police as well as in her statement recorded before the learned Magistrate, stated that she had not been kidnapped. 4. Pursuant to the submission of the charge-sheet, the PRC case was registered and summons were issued to the petitioner. However, the petitioner did not appear before the learned Court and remained absent without taking any steps. Subsequently, a non-bailable warrant of arrest (NBWA) was issued against him, and the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in the instant case, there was a love relationship between the victim and the petitioner and, owing to the said relationship, the victim, of her own volition, went along with the petitioner on 08.03.2024. 6. Mr. R. J. Baruah, the learned APP on the other hand submits that the Page No.# 3/4 petitioner has been declared as a proclaimed offender and that it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that normally, anticipatory bail should not be granted to such person. He relied on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in “Srikant Upadyay Vs. State of Bihar and Another”, in SLP Criminal No. 7940/2023. 7. I have heard the counsels and have gone through the records as well as the decisions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that normally, an accused person who is declared as a proclaimed offender and against whom an NBWA is issued should not be enlarged on pre-arrest bail but then the same has been made subjected to fact and circumstances of the case. 8. In “Asha Dubey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh” reported in 2024 Live law (SC) 889 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a proclaimed offender is ordinarily not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. However, the Court may entertain such an application and grant relief in exceptional cases, depending upon the nature of the offence and the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. In view of the aforesaid, in the instant case, it is seen that the victim was in a love relationship with the petitioner and that, in her statements recorded before the learned Magistrate as well as by the police, she stated that she had not been kidnapped and that she had gone along with the petitioner on her own volition. 10. In view of the same, this Court deems it fit to enlarge the petitioner on pre-arrest bail on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Page No.# 4/4 CJM, South Salmara Mankachar under the following conditions: (i) the petitioner to appear within a period of 10 days from the date of this order, before the CJM, South Salmara Mankachar without fail. (ii) The petitioner shall not hamper and tamper with the evidence of the case, and/or influence the witness connected with the alleged case; and (iii) The petitioner shall not leave their residence without prior permission of the Arresting Authority. the petitioner to appear within a period of 10 days from the date of this order, before the CJM, South Salmara Mankachar without fail. 11. The petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant