Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010019052026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/232/2026 MINTU ALI S/O LATE KHABIR ALI VILL- UDIYANA, P.S. RANGIA DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM PIN- 781354 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:RENU DAS W/O KARUNA KANTA LAHARI RANGIA TOWN WARD NO. 3 ((BHATTAPARA) P.S. RANGIA DIST. KAMRUP ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MD M S ALI, MS. R GHOSH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS T PARASHAR BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 24.03.2026 Heard Md. M.S. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.P. Page No.# 2/3 Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Ms. T. Parashar, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent no.2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused-petitioner in connection with Rangia P.S. Case No. 5/2026, registered under Section 79 of the BNS, 2023, read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The allegation as per the FIR is that the informant has a daughter aged 15 years and the accused person has been sexually harassing her taking advantage of familiarity with the family and the accused person frequently visited informant’s house and touched informant’s daughter’s feet while she was sleeping and also made sexually explicit remarks including proposals for sexual relations. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a compromise was affected between the parties on 14.11.2025 but subsequently a false case has been lodged against the present petitioner because the informant owed money to the petitioner from whom he had borrowed a sum of money earlier. In this regard, the learned counsel has referred to an FIR which was lodged by the accused on 20.12.2025, which is annexed to the present bail application. The learned Amicus Curiae Ms. T. Parashar has submitted that earlier an FIR was lodged on 13.11.2025 by the present informant against the accused in respect of a similar offence but the same was not registered and on the very next day a compromise petition was submitted to the Police and the case was therefore dropped. However, the accused did not abide by the terms of the compromise petition and continued to sexually harass the daughter of the Page No.# 3/3 informant because of which the instant FIR was lodged on 03.01.2026, wherein it is stated that the period of occurrence is within 1 (one) month of lodging of the instant FIR. It is also submitted that the FIR dated 20.12.2025 allegedly lodged by the accused was not registered and hence it appears that the accused has made up a false story subsequently regarding monetary transaction between the accused and the informant side. Upon perusal of the records, there is no indication that the accused person had lodged any FIR on 20.12.2025 against the present informant side. A perusal of the statements of the victim recorded by the I/O as well as the Magistrate squarely implicates the petitioner and the same indicate commission of sexual assault by the petitioner on the victim girl, who is a minor. Having regard to the above, it is not a fit case for grant of privilege of pre- arrest bail and consequently the prayer stands rejected and the petition stands dismissed. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant