AB 140/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A C UPADHYAY This is an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest b ail of the petitioners, namely, (1) Akbor Laskar, (2) Rajiv Barlaskar @ Rajiv La skar and (3) Tuton Laskar, in connection with Silchar P.S. Case No. 1283/2010 r egistered under Section 366(A) IPC of IPC(G.R. Case No.2218/2010). Heard Mr. SP Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B.S. Sinha, learned Addl. P.P. for the State of Assam. I have perused the case diary and the materials on records and also peru sed the Statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The FIR reveals that written information was filed with Arunachal Police out pos t on 20.08.2010 about missing of Morium Sultana Laskar aged about 17‰ years. On enquiry, the father of the victim came to know that on the same day one Mamum La skar, son on late Nasiruddin lascar, resident of Balighat Kidnapped his daughter . The FIR further reveals that father of the victim contacted Runu Laskar who as sured him to hand over the victim immediately. However, on the next day, the fat her of the victim came to know from his relatives that Mamum Laskar was staying at the residence of Nasiruddin Barbhuyan whose residence is situated in village Gobindapur. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the victim and the main accuse-petitioner were in love and both of them voluntarily went away from their respective houses as both the guardians did not consent to their proposed marriage. For this reason, both of them went away at their own and entered into marriage tie at their sweet will, without being influenced from any corner. As t he police started harassing both the families, both the accused and the victim d ecided to surrender before the police and accordingly, they have surrendered on 25.08.2010. However, the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P .C did not support the above story advanced by the learned counsel for the petit ioners. On careful perusal of the case diary and materials on record and conside ring the gravity of allegation levelled against the petitioner and further consi dering the progress of investigation of the case, it appears that there are suff icient cogent incriminating materials against the petitioner warranting custodia l interrogation in connection with the aforementioned case. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the petitioners cannot be extended to the privilege of pre-arrest bail in connection with the said case. Accordingly, the prayer for pre-arrest bail, filed on behalf of the peti tioners, stands rejected at this stage.