AB/1590/2026 of JANOBI MONDAL AND ANR Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR on 26 August 2026

ORDER

Date : 27-08-2026 Heard Mr. A. M. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional PP for the State and Mr. D. K. Agarwala, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused-applicants in connection with Dhubri P.S. Case No. 186/2026, registered under Sections 61(2)/318(4)/336(3)/339/340(2)/229(1)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023, read with Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 in correspondence to GR. No. 574/2026.

3. The petitioners have filed an additional affidavit bringing on record certain facts and also annexing copy of the order dated 12-05-2026 passed in WP(C)/ 957/2026, which was withdrawn at the behest of the petitioner.

4. The instant case in which the petitioners are seeking anticipatory bail had arisen out of a complaint dated 09-05-2026 before the Dhubri police station lodged by the respondent No. 2, as informant making a series of allegations.

5. The gist of the allegations pertain to making forgery of documents to hide the fact of the petitioner No. 1 contracting child marriage with the petitioner No. 2 which had actually disqualified her to hold the post of an elected panchayat official.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the investigation is completed and the case is at the stage of trial before the learned Additional Session Judge cum Special Judge (POCSO) Dhubri in GR case No. 574/2026. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in terms of section 340 CrPC, a police investigation would not be maintainable into the alleged offences pertaining to forgery, etc. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners may be granted bail at this stage.

7. The informant filed an affidavit-in-opposition annexing certain documents. Mr. Agarwala, learned counsel for the informant submits that a complaint was moved before the District Commissioner who was pleased to issue notice and against which a writ petition was preferred by the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner tried to use a forged document in the writ petition also, but, the writ petition came to be withdrawn.

8. On the point of maintainability, Mr. Agarwala, the learned counsel for the informant submits that it has been clarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah and Anr Vs. Meenakshi Marwah and Anr reported in (2005) 4 SCC 370 that section 195(1)(b)(ii) would be attracted only when the document in question has been subjected to an offence after being produced in the court.

9. The learned counsel submits that considering the continued dishonest conduct, the petitioners are not deserving of anticipatory bail.

10. I have perused the scanned TCR and considered the rival submissions.

11. In terms of the alleged facts vis-a-vis the principle laid down by Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra), the issue of maintainability of the bail petition is decided in favour of the private respondent. As far as the merits are concerned, upon perusing the materials and the incriminating circumstances emerging, I find force in the contention of the informant that the petitioners are not deserving of the privilege of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the instant bail petition stands rejected.

12. However, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the learned Trial Court for regular bail by appearing before the court and if done so, necessary orders may be passed for the same, also keeping in mind the stage of the case and the interest of the trial.

13. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail petition stands disposed of on the aforesaid terms.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant