Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010082922026 2026:GAU-AS:8202 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/888/2026 KHAIRUL HOQUE S/O KARIM ALI R/O BODI BAZAR, P.S. ANDN DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 783393. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SMTI. MUNNI PACHI W/O DINESH PACHI R/O BODI BAZAR P.S. AND DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN-78339 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M KHAN, MR. S ISLAM,MS J AKTAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS T PARASHAR BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 10-06-2026 Page No.# 2/4 Heard Mr. M Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State respondent and Ms. T Parashar, the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for respondent no. 2. 2. This is an application u/s 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for granting pre-arrest bail to the accused petitioner in connection with Bongaigaon P.S. Case No. 46/2026 u/s 64(2)/351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, read with Section 6 of POCSO Act. 3. Case Diary received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Khan that the present accused/petitioner is innocent and has not committed any such offence as alleged in the FIR. However, it is a fact that there was love affair between the victim and the present petitioner and when the mother of the victim came to know about the relationship she charged the accused and there was an altercation in the bazaar area and out of grudge only the FIR has been instituted by some false and concocted allegation. That apart, the victim was above 18 years of age at the time of incident though the case is registered under POCSO Act. However, he is ready and willing to extend his cooperation in further investigation of this case, if he is granted with some interim protection. 5. Mr. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor raised objection and submitted that from the statement made by the victim it is seen that the accused/petitioner used to have sexual intercourse with her forcibly on the false promise of marriage when she was a minor girl. In regards to the age of the victim, her school certificate as well as one birth certificate is also seized by Page No.# 3/4 police apart from the Aadhar Card. The school authority issued a certificate stating that the birth certificate seized by police is found to be genuine. As per the birth certificate, the victim was below 18 years of age at the time of incident. Mr. Sharma further submitted that in her Medical Report it is seen that she was sexually exploited and as per the Medical Report she also gave test positive pregnancy. 6. In that context Mr. Khan submitted that there is no such mention about her pregnancy in the FIR and the FIR was lodged only due to grudge and altercation of the informant with the present petitioner. 7. Ms. Parashar, the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for respondent no. 2 submitted that the age of the victim was admittedly below 18 years at the relevant time of incident and from the allegation made against the present petitioner the bail may not be considered at this stage and that apart the accused has also criminal antecedent wherein other cases are registered against him. 8. Mr. Sharma, the learned Addl. PP also submitted that as per the note of the I/O and from the materials in the Case Diary it is seen that there are presently two cases are pending against the present petitioner with similar kind of offence one has already been charge-sheeted and other is still at the investigation stage. 9. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the Case Diary and the statement made by the victim as well as her Medical Report. Though it is the plea of the petitioner that there is no physical relation between the victim and accused and only love relationship was Page No.# 4/4 there between the victim and him but, the Medical evidence suggests that there was physical relationship between her and the petitioner and that apart, positive test of pregnancy was found during her examination. However, from the statement made in the FIR there is no allegation that the girl became pregnant due to physical relationship with the accused. But it can be held that at the relevant time of filing the FIR, the family members/victim may not be aware about her pregnancy. 10. So considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the statement made by the victim this Court is of the opinion that is is not at all a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner at this stage and hence stands rejected. In view of above, this Anticipatory Bail application stands disposed of. Case Diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant