Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010183242026 2026:GAU-AS:14606 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2071/2026 RAMJAN ALI ALIAS KAILA MAGUR AND ANR S/O LATE ABDUL GAFUR, R/O NO. 3 ISLAMPUR, P.S. LALUK, DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM. 2: ABDUL LATIF @ LOTU R/O NO. 3 ISLAMPUR P.S. LALUK DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MOTIUR RAHMAN, MR. A S TAPADER Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 30-09-2026 Heard Mr. AS Tapader, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent. Page No.# 2/3 2. By this application, the petitioners have prayed for pre-arrest bail in connection with G.R. Case No. 339/2026 under Section 70(1) of the BNS, 2023, pending before the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, arising out of Laluk P.S. Case No. 85/2026. 3. This is the 2nd application filed by the petitioners for pre-arrest bail in connection with the aforesaid offence. The FIR in connection with which the petitioners are apprehending arrest was lodged by the victim herself, who has stated inter alia that she is a psychiatric patient and that after coming back from the treatment, while she was going back to her house, the petitioners, who were hiding beforehand in the forest grabbed her and took her inside the forest by pulling her clothes and raped her there. In the said FIR, it is stated that the petitioner No. 1 had raped her and threatened her not to scream, but she screamed and local people gathered and by taking advantage of the darkness both the petitioners had left the place of occurrence. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as far as the allegation against petitioner No. 1 is concerned, there are materials supporting the same, but as far as the allegation against the petitioner No. 2 is concerned, the statement of the victim recorded by the learned Magistrate does not implicate him. He further submits that the victim had sworn in her affidavit stating that she could not identify the persons, who had raped her on the night of the occurrence. 5. On the other hand, Mr. B Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on perusal of the TCR submits that both the petitioners are equally responsible for the offence as it has come out in the evidence that both the petitioners had dragged the victim inside the forest and the petitioner No. 1 raped her and the Page No.# 3/3 petitioner No. 2 held the victim and he helped in the offence of rape committed by the petitioner No. 1. He has also placed the medical report suggesting that there are injuries on the victim. 6. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsels, more so, in view of the fact that the victim is a mental patient and at night at around 9:00 pm both the petitioners had dragged the victim inside the forest and one of them had raped her, which is established by the materials and the charge- sheet is submitted against them, this Court does not deem it fit to enlarge the petitioners on pre-arrest bail. Therefore, the prayer stands rejected. 7. Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant