Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010081502026 2026:GAU-AS:8636 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/855/2026 SUBAHAN ALI ALIAS MD SUBHAN ALI S/O MD. MIRJAN ALI R/O 2 NO. DONGARGAON, P.S. TAMULPUR, DIST. TAMULPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:MD. MAKBUL ALI S/O LATE ATOWAR ALI R/O 2 NO. DONGARGAON P.S. TAMULPUR DIST. TAMULPUR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S M ABDULLAH P, MR. MD IMDAD,MD IMRAN,MD R ISLAM,MS F HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. N. CHAUDHURY(AMICUS CURIAE) BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA O R D E R Date : 16.06.2026. Heard Mr. S.M. Abdullah P, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Page No.# 2/4 Parasar, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing on behalf of the State respondent as well as Ms. N. Chaudhury, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2. This is an application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of pre- arrest bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Subahan Ali @ Md. Subhan Ali, who is apprehending arrest in connection with the Tamulpur P.S. Case No. 37/2026, registered under Sections 137(2)/64(1) of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The case diary is received and perused the same. It is submitted by Mr. Abdullah, the learned counsel that the accused petitioner as well as the victim had love relationship and on the day of incident also, she went outside out of her own volition. That apart, no such incident had happened as alleged in the FIR. As per instruction, at the time of incident, the girl was more than 17 years of age and at the same time the petitioner was also 19 years of age. There was admittedly an adolescent love and if anything had happened, it was purely consensual one. However the accused petitioner is still ready and willing to extend his cooperation in further investigation of this case, if he is provided with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. Mr. Parasar, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam raised objection and submitted that from the case diary as well as from the birth certificate of the victim, it reveals that the victim was exactly 17 years 6 days at the relevant date of incident and she implicated the accused petitioner in her statement recorded under Section Page No.# 3/4 183 of the BNSS, 2023. Mr. Parasar accordingly submitted that it may not be a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner at this stage. Ms. Chaudhury, the learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 also raised objection and submitted that there is a specific allegation of rape against the present accused petitioner and the case is also registered under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and hence, the petitioner may not be provided with the privilege of pre-arrest bail at this stage. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the case diary and the statement made by the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023. It is a fact that the victim brought some allegations against the present accused petitioner. However, it also cannot be denied that both the accused petitioner as well as the victim had love affairs. So, considering the materials available in the case diary and the age of the present accused petitioner as well as other circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the privilege of pre- arrest bail can be granted to the present accused petitioner with certain terms and conditions. Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the accused/petitioner, named above, he shall be enlarged on pre-arrest bail on executing a bond of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees twenty thousands) only, with one surety of like amount, to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the I.O. within 7 (seven) days; Page No.# 4/4 (ii) that the petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation of the case and will appear before the I.O. as and when required in connection with the investigation of the aforesaid P.S. case; and (iii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. This bail petition stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant