GAHC010090242025

2025:GAU-AS:6287 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : AB/979/2025 SOPIKUL ISLAM @ SOFIQUL HOQUE S/O-RAMJAN ALI,R/O-VILL-CHATAIMARI,P.O-SIMLABARI,P.S-

LAKHIPUR,DIST-GOALPARA,ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP,ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M KHAN, MR T T MONI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

ORDER

19.05.2025

1. Heard Mr. A.M. Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam.

2. This application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sopikul Islam @Sofiqul Hoque, who is apprehending that he may be remanded to custody, if he appears before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara in PRC Case No. 214/2024, which has issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against him in the said case.

3. The gist of accusations in this case is that on 27.07.2018, victim woman had lodged an FIR before the In-Charge of Jaleswar Police Out-Post, inter-alia alleging that during the absence of her husband on 18.07.2018, the petitioner entered into the house of the victim woman and committed rape on her after putting her under threat.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the accusations made in the FIR are not true. He also submits that though the alleged incident occurred on 18.07.2018, however, the FIR was lodged on 27.07.2018, i.e., after a gap of 9(nine) days. He further submits that after completion of the FIR, charge sheet was laid in PRC Case No. 214/2024, showing the petitioner as an absconder in the charge sheet.

5. He also submits that the petitioner was never searched or there was no attempt on the part of the Investigating Officer to meet the petitioner during the course of the investigation.

6. He also submits that after laying of the charge sheet, the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara, had initially issued summons which he never received.

7. Later on, he issued bailable warrant of arrest and thereafter, non- bailable warrant of arrest. He submits that the petitioner is apprehension of appearing before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara, which is the Committal Court, as he may not be in a position to grant bail to the petitioner, even if he appears before the said Court due to the embargo of Section 480(1) (i) of the of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

8. He submits that the incident involved in this case has initially occurred 8(eight) years back in the year 2018, and the petitioner is ready to face the trial.

9. Hence, he may be allowed the protection of a favourable Order under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

10. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that in the statement under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the victim woman have categorically made implicating statements against the present petitioner. He also submits that in the charge sheet laid in this case, the petitioner has been shown as an absconder, which shows that he did not co-operate with the Investigating Officer.

11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has further submitted that as the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has issued summons and bailable warrant of arrest against the present petitioner at the first instance, it would have granted bail to the petitioner if he had complied with the processes issued by the same Court. However, the petitioner intentionally defaulted in appearing before the same Court. Hence, he submits that bail should not be granted to the petitioner.

12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and have gone through the scanned copy of the case record of PRC Case No. 214/2024.

13. On perusal of the