Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010286012025 2026:GAU-AS:1780 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/3037/2025 KHAIRUL ALOM SARKAR ALIAS SAHIL AND ANR S/O MOZIBAR RAHMAN SARKAR, VILLAGE- JHAGRAPAR PART-I, P.S DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM. 2: SHEIKH FAHEEM AKHTAR ALIAS FAHEEM S/O FATEH UDDIN SHEIKH VILLAGE- CIVIL HOSTPITAL LINK ROAD NEAR POLICE GATE P.O. JHAGRAPAR P.S DIST- DHUBRI ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM , TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE P.P. ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MS A BEGUM, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 10-02-2026 Page No.# 2/4 Heard Ms. A. Begum, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. A. Begum, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State respondent. 2. This is an application u/s 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for granting pre-arrest bail to the accused petitioners in connection with Chapar P.S. Case No. 161/2025 u/s 70(1)/127(1)/351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 in correspondence to GR No. 560/2025. 3. Scanned copy of TCR has already been received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Ms. Begum, the learned counsel for the petitioners that the present two accused/petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any such offence as alleged in the FIR. However, it is a fact that the accused/petitioner no. 1 had love affairs with victim/informant and she insisted him to marry her. Though they are in relationship but, as she was a married lady and did not get any divorce decree from her earlier husband, he could not accept the proposal of the victim/informant and on refusal only the FIR has been lodge with some false and concocted allegation. She further submitted that they had love affairs and they were also in relationship and she also annexed some documents wherefrom it is seen that there were some monitory transaction dispute between them. She further submitted that the matter was also amicably settled but in spite of that the FIR was lodged by her. 5. Ms. A. Begum further submitted that she applied for anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge and on rejection of the earlier bail petition these petitioners approached this Court with an anticipatory bail application. As there was no interim protection, they could not appear before the I/O as there is Page No.# 3/4 possibility of arrest of these two petitioners. However, the petitioners are ready and willing to contest the case by appearing before the learned Trial Court below on each and every date to be fixed by the Court. 6. Ms. A. Begum, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that this is a case of gang rape wherein she brought the allegation of rape against her by both the accused/petitioners along with one other. It is the case of the informant that on the day of the incident they promising to provide her job, she was picked up and went to the house of Khairul, the petitioner no. 1 wherein these two petitioners along with other committed the offence of rape one by another. She further submitted that in her statement made before police and also her statement recorded u/s 183 are corroborated and where also it is seen that they committed such kind of offence. However, she admitted that the petitioner as well as the informant had some love relationship which is not denied by her. But, on the day of the incident they took her in the house of the accused/petitioner no. 1 and committed rape on her. Ms. Begum accordingly raised vehement objection and submitted that is is not at all a fit case for anticipatory bail at this stage. 7. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the case record and the scanned copy of the record as well as the Case Diary which I received from the learned Trial Court below. It is seen that the case is already charge sheeted and these two petitioners are shown as an absconder in the charge sheet as they did not cooperate in the investigation of the case and in spite of several attempt they could not be apprehended. From the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner also it reveals that they did not cooperate with the investigation and as their anticipatory bail was Page No.# 4/4 not considered by this Court as well as the Court of learned Sessions Judge. Thus from the entire record as well as the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, it is seen that during the entire period of investigation these two petitioners avoided police arrest and for which their custodial interrogation was not possible and both the petitioners had to be shown as an absconder in the charge-sheet. 8. Considering all aspects of this case and conduct of the petitioners, I do not find it a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to these two petitioners and accordingly the same stands rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant