AB/1982/2026 of DIDARUL ISLAM Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR on 13 September 2026

ORDER

14.09.2026 Heard Mr. M U Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K K Parashar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the informant.

2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for granting anticipatory bail.

3. On 01.08.2026, the informant/opposite party No. 2 lodged an FIR before the Lakhipur Police Station alleging that the victim, namely X, and the accused studied in the same school and, accordingly, the accused was known to the informant's daughter. The obscene photograph of his daughter was seen on another person's mobile phone about 6 months ago and the victim tried to have a love affair with his daughter. Later on, about 2 months ago, the victim took his girl to his residence and had physical relation with her and threatened to upload the obscene photographs on social media/Facebook if she disagreed with the proposal of love affairs. Accordingly, the said FIR has been registered vide Lakhipur P.S. Case No. 128/2026 (G.R. No. 705/2026) under Section 65(1) BNS, read with Section 6/15 of the POCSO Act, 2012, read with Section 66F/67(B) of the IT Act, 2000.

4. It is submitted that the petitioner is a student of Higher Secondary Science Second Year, whose pre-board test is scheduled to be held in the month of September 2026, and furthermore, the FIR is a planted one and has been lodged with the object of damaging the career of the petitioner. Moreover, the FIR has been lodged in relation to incidents that took place 6 months ago. Therefore, the FIR is a concocted one. The learned counsel for the petitioner denies that any obscene photograph or video of the alleged victim has been uploaded on social media.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, with reference to the Case Diary, has submitted that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner in the form of the statements of the witnesses, including the victim, recorded by the police as well as by the Magistrate, and the video recording of the alleged incident is also available in the Case Diary.

6. The learned counsel representing respondent No. 2/the informant has filed written objection opposing the grant of pre-arrest bail. In the said objection, it is alleged that the petitioner had forcibly had sexual intercourse with the minor victim after administering her drugged food, and also made a video recording of the incident and circulated the same on social media. It is further stated therein that the accused has been frequently threatening the victim with dire consequences if the informant does not withdraw the FIR and that the family members of the accused persons are desperate in nature, and because of the frequent threats by the accused person, the deponent as well as his victim daughter and other family members, and the investigating agencies are also not taking steps to take the petitioner into custody despite being appraised of the same.

7. However, a bail objection has been submitted by the I.O. to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor wherein it has been stated that certain persons claiming to have influence and connections with persons associated with the ruling party allegedly visited the house of the victim and her family, threatened and pressurized them to withdraw the case and, because of the harassment by the accused persons and persons associated with the accused, an obstruction has been caused to her normal movement.

8. Having perused the Case Diary and in view of the incriminating material available therein, as well as the aforesaid facts discussed hereinabove, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for grant of the privilege of pre-arrest bail.

9. Accordingly, the prayer for pre-arrest bail stands rejected and the bail petition stands dismissed.

10. Send back the Case Diary.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant