Dismissed¶29

Samsul Hoque v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC7 Apr 2025AB/196/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

AB/196/2025 Gauhati High Court 08.04.2025 Mitali Thakuria (J.); anticipatory/pre-arrest bail under S.482 BNSS rejected; North Lakhimpur P.S. Case No. 377/2024; S.140(3)/65(1) BNS read with S.4 POCSO Act; S.482(4) BNSS maintainability bar for offences under S.65 and S.70(2) BNS 2023; victim below 16 years, statement under S.183 BNSS; petitioner Samsul Hoque; respondents State of Assam and Jahur Uddin; FIR allegedly lodged after petitioner refused marriage proposal; case diary returned.

What did the court decide?

After hearing both sides and perusing the case diary, especially the statement of the victim, the Court found it is not a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner, and the application accordingly stands rejected. ¶29

Samsul Hoque Vs the State of Assam and Anr. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Gauhati HC (2025)

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010017192025

2025:GAU-AS:4385

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : AB/196/2025

¶6

SAMSUL HOQUE SON OF SUBAN ALI

¶7

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NO-2, RAMPUR, POST OFFICE- DEEJO, POLICE STATION- NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DISTRICT- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN787031

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶10

2:JAHUR UDDIN SON OF LATE- ABDUL KHALEK RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NO- 1 DEEJO PATHAR POST OFFICE- DEEJO POLICE STATION- NORTH LAKHIMPUR DISTRICT- LAKHIMPUR PIN- 78703

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : ALHAJJ I UDDIN, H M I HOQUE,MR ROBIUL HOQUE,MRS. R MOMTAZ

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR M HOQUE (R-2),MR. A PHUKAN, Amicus Curiac, (R-2),MR. A PHUKAN, Amicus Curiac, (R-2)

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA

¶15

ORDER

¶16

08.04.2025

¶17

Heard Mr. A. I. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No.1 and Ms. J. Begum, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. M. Hoque, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶18

2. This application filed under Section 482 of BNSS, praying for granting prearrest bail to the accused/petitioner in connection with North Lakhimpur P. S. Case No. 377/2024, registered under Section 140(3)/65(1) of BNS read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act..

¶19

3. The Case Diary was received earlier but the medical report could not be sent by the IO though it was called for in pursuant to the order dated 19.03.2025.

¶20

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Uddin, that the present petitioner is innocent and he is not at all involved in the alleged offence as stated in the FIR. The petitioner contends that he is a married man and is happily residing with his wife and children. However, the father of the victim tried to offer his daughter for marriage to the petitioner, but when the petitioner refused the marriage proposal, the FIR was lodged with false and concocted allegations only to harass the petitioner. Further, it is submitted that the accused/petitioner is a permanent resident of his address locality and there

¶21

Page No.# 3/4

¶22

is no chance of absconding. Therefore, he prays for the grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner and also submits that he is ready to cooperate with the investigating agency, if allowed.

¶23

5. In this context, Mr. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that there is sufficient incriminating material against the accused/petitioner and that the victim had implicated the petitioner’s name in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS. It is also an admitted fact that the victim was a minor at the relevant time of the incident and was below 16 years of age. He further submitted that as the case is registered under Section 65(1) of the BNSS, with the allegation of rape on a victim below 16 years of age, and as per Section 482(4) of the BNSS, the present anticipatory bail application is not maintainable.

¶24

6. Section 482 (4) of BNNS speaks that “Nothing in this section shall apply to any case involving the arrest of any person on accusation of having committed an offence under section 65 and sub-section (2) of section 70 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023”.

¶25

7. Accordingly, Mr. Sharma submitted that, apart from the incriminating materials available in the case diary, the petition itself is not maintainable under the provisions of BNSS. Therefore, he submitted that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶26

8. On the other hand, Ms. Begum, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, has submitted that the case is registered under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. She raised an objection and submitted that it is not a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner at this stage.

¶27

9. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both

¶28

Page No.# 4/4

¶29

sides, as well as perusing the case diary, especially the statement of the victim, I do not find it a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner. Hence, the same stands rejected.

¶30

10. In view of above, this Anticipatory Bail application stands disposed of.

¶31

11. Case Diary be returned.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Samsul Hoque v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samsul Hoque v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjit Singh Vs the Union of India

Ranibala Debnath and 5 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Dinbandhu Kumar Vs the State of Assam

Devajit Bhuyan @ Debojit Bhuyan Vs the State of Assam

Dhirendra Rawat Vs the State of Asssam

Ruhul Amin @ Ruhul Ahmed Vs the State of Assam