Dismissed¶¶26

Nityananda Hazarika v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC15 May 2025AB/935/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail / pre-arrest bail; Section 482 BNSS 2023; Jajori P.S. Case No. 08/2025; Sections 319(2), 140(3), 64(1) BNS 2023; Sections 6, 17 POCSO Act 2012; resort owner; resort used as brothel; second bail application after rejection dated 18.03.2025; informant no-objection affidavit; custodial interrogation; gravity of offence; investigation pending; Nagaon, Assam; Gauhati High Court; Justice Mitali Thakuria; bail rejected.

What did the court decide?

Though the petitioner may not be involved in the penetrative sexual assault on the victim, from the Case Diary materials he was very much aware that his resort was being used as a brothel; he allowed boys and girls to come to the resort and it was used as a brothel and for other illegal activities. ¶¶25

Nityananda Hazarika Vs the State of Assam and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Gauhati HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether pre-arrest (anticipatory) bail under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 should be granted to the accused petitioner in connection with Jajori P.S. Case No. 08/2025.

¶¶16

Court's answer

¶¶25

Ratio / Principle

There is no new and urgent ground to consider the bail application, which was earlier rejected on perusal of the case record by passing a detailed order.

¶¶25

Key takeaways

Considering the aspect of the case, the gravity of the offence and that the investigation is still under process, the Court did not find it a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, and the application stands rejected.ratio¶¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Mitali Thakuria, J.), order dated 16-05-2025 in AB/935/2025 — Second anticipatory bail application under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 by Nityananda Hazarika, owner of a resort, in connection with Jajori P.S. Case No. 08/2025 (Sections 319(2)/140(3)/64(1) BNS, 2023 read with Sections 6/17 POCSO Act, 2012). His earlier bail application had been rejected by the same Court on 18.03.2025, observing sufficient incriminating materials and that the resort was used as a brothel of which he was the owner. Counsel for the petitioner urged that no sexual assault was alleged against him personally, the resort was managed by his Manager, and he was willing to cooperate with the I/O; the informant (respondent no. 2) filed an affidavit raising no objection to pre-arrest bail; the Additional Public Prosecutor opposed, contending no new ground existed and custodial interrogation might be necessary. Perusing the Case Diary, the Court held that although the petitioner may not be involved in the penetrative sexual assault, he was aware his resort was being used as a brothel and allowed boys and girls to frequent it for brothel and other illegal activities; there was no new and urgent ground, the earlier rejection having been by a detailed order. Considering the gravity of the offence and the ongoing investigation, pre-arrest bail was refused and the application stood rejected and disposed of; Case Diary ordered returned.

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010085302025

2025:GAU-AS:6139

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

¶5

Case No. : AB/935/2025

¶6

NITYANANDA HAZARIKA S/OLATE LOKESWAR HAZARIKA VILL-KUMARGAON,SENCHOWA P.O.SENCHOWA, P.S.NAGAON SADAR DIST.NAGAON, ASSAM PIN-782002

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:PUTULI BORDOLOI W/O DULU BORDOLOI VILL- RAHDHALA P.O.AND P.S.JAJORI DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN-78214

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M H AHMED, MR M RAHMAN,MOTIUR RAHMAN

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. O ULLAH(R-2),MD S ALI (R-2)

¶11

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Date : 16-05-2025

¶14

Page No.# 2/5

¶15

Heard Mr. B.D. Konwar, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Rahman, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lahakar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State respondent and Md. S. Ali, the learned counsel for informant/respondent no. 2.

¶16

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 Jajori P.S. Case No. 08/2025 u/s 319(2)/140(3)/64(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 R/W Section 6/17 of POCSO Act, 2012.

¶17

3. Case Diary is received. Perused the same.

¶18

4. It is submitted by Mr. Konwar that the earlier bail application of the present petitioner was rejected by this Court vide its order dated 18.03.2025 observing that sufficient incriminating materials available against the present petitioner and by further observation that the resort was used by him as brothel and he is the owner of the said resort. From the FIR itself it is very much evident that the victim girl had prior relationship with the main accused, namely, Birochan Bordoloi and he also had forcible physical relationship with the daughter of the informant on multiple occasions. But, no such allegation of sexual assault has been brought against the present petitioner and he is apprehending arrest in connection with this case only for the fact that he is the owner of the said resort wherein the offence was alleged to have been committed by the main accused. He further submitted that though some allegations were brought by some of the witnesses that the said resort was using as a brothel but, to that effect no FIR has been lodged against the present petitioner. He is no way connected with the

¶19

Page No.# 3/5

¶20

alleged offence and also at the relevant time of incident he was not present in the resort and it was managed by his Manager who may be responsible, if any such incident has happened in his resort. However, the present petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the I/O in further investigation of the case, if he is granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail.

¶21

5. Mr. Lahakar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that his earlier bail application was rejected by this Court after perusal of the Case Diary and considering the incriminating materials against the present petitioner. He has brought no new ground to consider his bail application at this stage and the affidavit filed on behalf of the informant has no value in the eye of law. He further submitted that I/O has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the present accused/petitioner and hence his custodial interrogation may be necessary for the interest of further investigation. He further submitted that from the statement of the victim also it is seen that at the time of incident she also shouted for help but no one came forward to help the victim and when she was subjected to penetrative sexual assault by the coaccused. Mr. Lahakar accordingly raised objection and submitted that this is not at all fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present-petitioner.

¶22

6. The learned counsel Mr. Ali appearing on behalf of the respondent/informant submitted in this regard that the informant has no objection if the present petitioner is extended with the privilege of pre-arrest bail and affidavit has also been filed by the informant in that regard.

¶23

7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and also perused the Case Diary. It is a fact that his earlier bail application was rejected by this Court after perusal of the Case Diary it was also observed that

¶24

Page No.# 4/5

¶25

the petitioner was using the resort as a brothel and he is also involved in similar kind of offence. It is seen that while rejecting the earlier bail application also the informant through her engaged counsel raised no objection in granting the privilege of interim bail to the present petitioner stating that he is not aware as to whether the present petitioner was present at the relevant time of incident in the said resort. As submitted by Mr. Konwar, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the mother of the victim also made statement in the FIR that her daughter had physical relationship with the accused namely Birochan Bordoloi on multiple occasions forcibly and on the day of incident also he took her to the said resort and had sexual intercourse with her forcibly. The present accused/petitioner may not be involved in the offence of sexual penetrative assault on the victim but, from the available materials in the Case Diary it is seen that he was very much aware about the fact that his resort is using as a brothel rather, he allowed the boys and girls to come to his resort and it was used as a brothel and for some other illegal activities. More so, there is no new and urgent ground to consider the bail application for the present petitioner which was earlier rejected on perusal of the case record by passing a detailed order.

¶26

8. Considering this aspect of the case, the gravity of the offence and also considering that the investigation is still under process, I do not find it a fit case to extent the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present petitioner and accordingly the same stands rejected.

¶27

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

¶28

Page No.# 5/5

¶29

Case Diary be returned.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Nityananda Hazarika v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nityananda Hazarika 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

Mohd. Faruk Vs the Union of India

Md. Miya Hussian and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Basith Ahmed Barbhuiya Vs the State of Assam

Nityananda Kaman Vs the State of Assam

Nobir Hussain Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Zakir Hussain Vs the State of Assam