Gauhati High Court
AB/1953/2026 of ARUP RAY Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR on 14 September 2026
GAHC010177682026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1953/2026 ARUP RAY SON OF LATE SUNALAL RAY, RESIDENT OF SILAGRANT KATING PAHAR, NORTH GUWAHATI, P.S. CHANGSARI, DISTRICT KAMRUP, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
GAHC010177682026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/1953/2026
ARUP RAY
SON OF LATE SUNALAL RAY, RESIDENT OF SILAGRANT KATING PAHAR, NORTH GUWAHATI, P.S. CHANGSARI, DISTRICT KAMRUP, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
2:A. SIVSANKARI
WIFE OF AJIT BHARATI NATH
RESIDENT OF SILGRANT
KATTING PAHAR
AMINGAON
NORTH GUWAHATI
P.S. CHANGSARI
DISTRICT KAMRUP
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R BORA, MS R MEDHI
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. S S A RAHMAN(R2),MR. S S S RAHMAN(R2)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 15.09.2026 Heard Mr. R. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K.
Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Mr. S.S.S. Rahman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.
2. By this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner, namely, Arup Ray, has prayed for grant of pre- arrest bail in connection Changsari P.S. Case No.180/2026 under Sections 64(1)/65(1)/115(1)/78(2)/74/331(2) of BNS, 2023 read with Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012.
3. It is submitted that on 30.07.2026, the complainant lodged an First Information Report before the Officer-in-Charge, Changsari Police Station alleging that for the past 3 years, the complainant has been residing at her husband's house with her 2 minor daughters as her husband deserted her without providing any financial help. It is alleged that one Deepak Bharti and Jonali Bharti are the relatives, that is, in-laws of the complainant physically assaulted them in an attempt to forcibly and unlawfully drive them out of the house. It is alleged that in a series of severe incidents occurring between July 2024 and the last 1 and 12 months from the date of filing of the FIR, unknown perpetrators repeatedly sprayed suspected anesthetic substance or intoxicating substance into her residence to make them unconscious and during the said time, severe sexual assaults were committed against the complainant and her minor daughters and because of such attacks, the complainant and her daughters were forced to flee from home and living in railway station. It is suspected that Biswajit Bharti @ Pappu, Manto, Vasu, Dinesh, Arup Roy and Uppen are involved in intoxicating spray and committing assaults during unconscious state as they stalked the complainant and her daughters and previously attempted to assault them.
4. Accordingly, the said FIR was received and registered as Changsari Police
Station Case No.180/2026 under Sections 64(1)/65(1)/115(1)/78(2)/74/331(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR named accused person Deepak Bharti and Jonali Bharti are the relatives, i.e., in-laws of the complainant and the husband of the complainant left the house along with his eldest daughter and since then, the aforesaid in-laws have been trying to grab the land belonging to the husband of the complainant, and there is a land dispute between them.
6. It is further submitted that the other FIR named accused persons, including the present petitioner, are neighbors of the complainant and way back in July 24, some altercation had taken place between the complainant and her in-laws, which was witnessed by the neighbors, including the present petitioner, but nobody intervened and the complainant, being angered by such non- intervention, lodged a false FIR by including the name of those neighbors, including the present petitioner.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary. The learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer for pre-arrest bail.
7. On a perusal of the statements of the alleged victims, it appears that they have not implicated any person by name as having assaulted them or committing sexual assault, etc. The eldest daughter of the complainant who has also been examined by the police and the Magistrate has given a completely contradictory story blaming the complainant.
8. Having regard to the nature of the material available in the CD, as far as the present petitioner is concerned, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not warranted. Accordingly, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is allowed.
9. The petitioner, in the event of his arrest in connection with the aforesaid case, shall be released on bail of Rupees 50,000/- with a surety for like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. The petitioner is directed to appear before the I.O. within a period of 10 days from today.
10. It is further directed that the petitioner shall not try to intimidate or influence the victims or the witnesses of the case in any manner.
11. Petition stands allowed and disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant