Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010044222026 2026:GAU-AS:6903 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/486/2026 SOFIKUL ISLAM SON OF ABDUL JABBAR SHEIKH RESIDENT OF VILL- BAMUNTILA, P.O. DHONTOLA BAZAR (BIDYAPUR), DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN-783372 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:ABIDA NASRIN D/O NOUSAD ALI VILL- CHALSAPARA P.O. MAJERGAON P.S. CHAPAR DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783376 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K GHOSH, MS F AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, R KHA(R2),MR. N ISLAM(R2),MR. M I HUSSAIN(R2) Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 19-05-2026 Heard learned counsel Mr. S.K. Ghosh for the petitioner Sofikul Islam, who has filed this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with prayer for pre-arrest bail as he is apprehending arrest in connection with Bongaigaon P.S. Case No. 289/2025 under Sections 75(2)/77/294/296/351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 12/14 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. R.J. Baruah for the respondent State and learned counsel Mr. M.I. Hussain for the respondent No. 2. 3. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection. 4. Serious objection has been raised against the bail petition, stating that there are incriminating materials in the Case Diary against the petitioner. The victim was rusticated from her college as certain objectionable photographs and videos were uploaded by the petitioner through social media. The victim is suffering immensely. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR was lodged when the victim had attained majority, holds no water. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the victim has referred to incidents at the time when she was a minor, after attaining majority. It is further submitted that this case does not fall under the POCSO Act. The petitioner’s mobile phone was seized and no recordings were found in his mobile Page No.# 3/3 phone. The petitioner is not guilty of uploading of any objectionable photographs and videos through the social media, involving the victim. 6. I have also scrutinized the Case Diary. Indeed, there are incriminating materials in the Case Diary against the petitioner. Investigation is still under progress. At this juncture, there appears to be no justified ground to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. Thereby, petition with prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected. 8. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant