Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010107992026 2026:GAU-AS:9957 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1193/2026 MAHIR ABBAS S/O SHAKAWAT ALI, R/O VILL DIMRUPAR, PS HOJAI, DIST.- HOJAI ASSAM VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE P.P., ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B HALDAR, MS S. BASAK Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 21.07.2026 Heard Mr. B. Halder, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Basiya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, for granting of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Page No.# 2/4 3. On 05.05.2026, the informant, namely, Pinki Begum by lodging an FIR in the Nagaon Police Station stated, inter alia, that the petitioner and FIR named accused person are known to her husband and they used to visit their rented house from time to time. On 03.05.2026 at about 8:30 PM, both the accused persons came to her house on a motorcycle looking for her husband. The informant allowed them to sit inside the house and went to the kitchen to prepare tea. Taking advantage of her husband's absence at the house, the petitioner and FIR named accused No. 1 came into the kitchen, caught hold her from behind, dragged her, gagged her mouth, threw her on the bed and raped her. First, accused No. 1 raped the informant and thereafter petitioner/accused No. 2 also raped her. After committing the rape, they left the informant in an almost unconscious condition and fled away on the motorcycle. After receipt of FIR, a case being Nagaon P.S Case No. 322/2026 under Sections 329(4)/70(1) of the BNS was registered on 06.05.2026. 4. It is submitted that the allegations against the present petitioner, who is a caretaker of the house of accused No. 1, Faruk Ahmed, are totally false. It is submitted that accused No. 1 is a businessman by occupation and is presently residing in Kuwait for the purpose of business. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to certain documents in the form of a money transmission receipt dated 04.05.2026, a copy of the first page of his passport, and a State of Kuwait Civil ID card which is valid till 27.04.2028. Another document in the form of an entry-exit movement report has also been annexed, wherefrom it has been sought to be established that the petitioner was not present in India but rather he was in Kuwait/Saudi Arabia. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since accused No. 1, who is not a petitioner in the present application, was not present in India on the date of occurrence, the entire story of the informant is false, and therefore, the present petitioner, who is the caretaker of the properties of accused No. 1, also cannot be fastened with guilt. It is further submitted that there is a land dispute Page No.# 3/4 between accused No. 1, Faruk Ahmed, and a cousin of the informant, namely Arfia Begum, who has used the present victim/informant to wreak vengeance upon accused No. 1. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, with reference to the Case Diary has submitted that the statements of the victim recorded by the police as well as the Magistrate are consistent with the allegations made in the FIR. Moreover, the documents relied upon by the petitioner correlating to accused No. 1 do not prima facie establish that accused No. 1 was absent from India during the relevant period. 7. I have perused the documents referred to hereinabove relating to accused No. 1. But upon such perusal, it cannot be established with any degree of certainty that the plea of alibi of accused No. 1 is prima facie sustainable. Moreover, on perusal of the Case Diary, in addition to the fact that the statement of the victim has been consistent throughout, there is material in the form of a statement of the neighbor of the victim confirming the presence of two persons in the house of the victim at the relevant time, although the said witness has not identified the two persons. Furthermore, no better particulars have been mentioned as regards any land dispute between accused No. 1 and the cousin of the victim, and moreover, no cogent reason has been shown as to why, because of any such land dispute, the present petitioner would be implicated in such a grave offense merely because he happened to be the caretaker of the properties of accused No. 1. 8. Having regard to the incriminating material available in the Case Diary and the grave nature of the allegations, the present is not a fit case for the grant of pre-arrest bail. 9. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. 10. Needless to say, the observations made hereinabove are confined to the purpose of disposal of the present bail application and shall have no bearing on any other proceeding, including the trial of the Page No.# 4/4 case, if one commences. 11. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant