The court's decision emphasized the importance of considering the statements of the victim and related witnesses in pre-arrest bail applications, as well as the impact on ongoing investigations.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. B.M.Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also Heard Mr. K.K.Parasar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State respondent.

2. This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is filed for granting the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, namely, Md. Shoriful Islam, apprehending arrest in connection with Jajori P.S. Case No. 100/2021 registered u/s 448/376/511/323/354/34 of the IPC.

3. The case diaries of Jajori P.S. Case No.100/2021 and 99/2021, as called for, are placed before the court.

4. Mr.B.M.Chodhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been roped in a false case to harass him, which is filed after inordinate delay without any explanation. According to Mr Choudhury, the FIR was lodged due to political enmity and rivalry between the family members of the petitioner and the informant, who are belonged to two different political parties. It is further submitted that the family members of the informant's family on the night of 16.11.2021 assaulted the petitioner which led to his hospitalization for his fracture injuries and in this connection, based on an F.I.R., Jajori PS case No. 99/21 was registered and investigation is on.

5. Opposing the pre-arrest bail application, Mr. K.K.Parasar, learned Additional Public prosecutor, Gauhati High court, submits that the victim woman in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has implicated the petitioner and the petitioner was even caught red-handed by her and another lady, who was inside her room.

6. The F.I.R. dated 17.11.2021 lodged by the victim woman, revealed the allegation that on 16.11.2021 at about 10 p.m., the petitioner trespassed into her dwelling house and attempted to rape her, who was asleep. Another woman, who was sleeping with her witnessing the petitioner abruptly caught him off and snatched away his mobile phone. It has been further alleged that on the night of 15.11.2021, the petitioner telephonically gave obscene proposal. The other F.I.R. named 4 (four) persons assaulted the victim woman and the said other woman and the other 4 (four) F.I.R. named accused persons freed the petitioner from their clutch.

7. It is noticed that the brother of the present petitioner had also lodged an F.I.R. on 17.11.2021 alleging that on 16.11.2021 at about 9.30 p.m. dragged away the present petitioner to the house of the F.I.R. named 4 (four) accused persons. They assaulted him and snatched away Rs.10,000/- and his mobile phone. The injured present petitioner was admitted in a hospital at Nagaon, where he was struggling for life. It was further stated that with an intention to malign their political image in the estimation of the public, they indulged in the aforesaid occurrence. Based on this F.I.R., the aforementioned, Jajori PS Case No. 99/21 under Sections 342/324/506/34 of the IPC was registered.

8. The above 2(two) cases are now under investigation.

9. A perusal of the statements of the victim woman of the present case recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., it is revealed that the petitioner is implicated with the alleged offences. Four other witnesses, who are related, have also corroborated the victim's statement.

10. It is further revealed that the F.I.R. in Jajori PS Case No. 99/21 was lodged on 17.11.2021 at 3.30 p.m. whereas the F.I.R. in Jajori PS Case No. 100/21 was filed on 17.11.2021 at about 6.30 p.m. The time gap appears to be significant as both the parties delayed in reporting their respective incidents to the police. One independent witness in her statement given in Jajori PS Case No. 99/2021 even supported the statement of the victim woman of this case. There is no prima facie indication of any political rivalry in evidence.

11. Therefore, keeping in consideration of the fact situations and attending circumstances in both the above two cases and as emerged from the case diary, of the instant case this court is of the opinion that if the privilege of pre-ar