Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 7638 (GAU)

PRANJAL RAVA v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR

AB/430/2026 · 2026-06-07

Parthivjyoti Saikia

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010040522026 2026:GAU-AS:7942 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/430/2026 PRANJAL RAVA SON TONKESWAR RAJBONGSHI VILL- NATUN NIRMAL GAON, MANKATA, T.E.1/159, RRA(A) DIBRUGARH, P.S. AND DIST. DIBRUGARH,ASSAM, PIN-786001. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:JUNMONI KONCH W/O SUHIL KONCHR/O TEZPUR MISSAMARI P.O. JIYAGABHARU P.S. GARUBANDHA DIST. TEZPUR ASSAM PIN-784506 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A DUTTA, MR B TAID Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. P DAS Page No.# 2/3 :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 08.06.2026 Heard Mr. A. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam as well as Ms. P. Das, the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the Respondent No.2. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for pre- arrest bail in respect of Kakapathar P.S. Case No.56/2025, under Sections 137(1)/65(1) of BNS, 2023. 3. The petitioner Pranjal Rava, aged about 50 years had taken away a minor girl who was born on 01.01.2012. The girl was taken away so that the petitioner can marry her. Later on, the Child Line recovered the girl from the house of the petitioner. 4. The victim girl has implicated the petitioner in her statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023. 5. The petitioner claimed to be mentally ill. But the documents show that the petitioner was suffering from mental problems because of consumption of psychotropic substances. From the documents submitted by the petitioner, the aforesaid fact has been revealed. 6. I have given my anxious considerations submissions made by the learned counsels of both sides. Page No.# 3/3 7. This Court is of the opinion that under the given circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. The pre- arrest bail application of the petitioner Pranjal Rava is rejected and disposed of accordingly. Case Diary shall be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant