JUDGMENT 1. Heard Md. I. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner who has submitted that this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed before this Court with a prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. 2. Before hearing the parties, this Court has called for the relevant case record and on perusal of the same, it is seen that an FIR was lodged before the Officer-in-Charge, Wage Asi OGC, North Garo Hills by the father of the alleged victim girl who is said to be a minor of 15 years of age informing the police that one person from Assam named Sahinur Ali of Village Simlabari P.S. Lakhipur had eloped with his minor daughter on 23.12.2020 and all efforts to trace his daughter proved futile. Hence, the FIR. 3. The police on receipt of the said FIR had accordingly registered a case being Women P.S. Case No. 03 (01) of 2021 under Section 366 (A) IPC and investigation was launched. 4. In course of investigation, the police came to know that the minor daughter of the informant and the accused are having a love affair and that the said minor girl was staying with the family of the said accused. Accordingly, the police team went to the house of the accused at Simlabari and rescued the minor girl from the house of the accused where she was brought back to her parent's house. 5. The I/O has also made repeated attempt to arrest the accused confirmed as the petitioner herein, but every attempt to apprehend him failed. Eventually, the accused/petitioner was declared an absconder and a lookout notice was issued against him. 6. In the meantime, the I/O had recorded the statement of the alleged victim as well as other witnesses and on the conclusion of investigation, prima facie evidence have been found well established against the absconding accused/petitioner under Section 366 (A)/344/376(3) IPC read with Section 3 (a)/4 POCSO Act. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has no knowledge of the case against him and it was only when the police came a number of times to his house to search for him was he made aware of the said case. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has no knowledge of the case against him and it was only when the police came a number of times to his house to search for him was he made aware of the said case. Accordingly, on 01.06.2022 the petitioner had applied for certified copies of the relevant documents from the Court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Resubelpara and on receipt of the said certified copies on 21.06.2022 he was confirmed of the proceedings against him. 8. The learned counsel has further submitted that the allegation made in the FIR is factually incorrect since the alleged victim girl was in love with him and out of this relationship, they have decided to get married and to stay together as husband and wife, therefore to say that he has kidnapped or abducted the alleged victim girl is not correct. 9. As regard the age of the alleged victim, the petitioner has submitted that the girl has informed him that she was 22 years old at the time of their relationship with her date of birth being 21.03.1998 as seen from the certificate issued by the Secretary, Upper Jambal Anganwadi Centre P.O. Gairong, North Garo Hills (Annexure-2 to the application). 10. Since the petitioner has been implicated in the case which is registered as Special POCSO Case No. 5 of 2022 under Section 376 (3) IPC read with Section 3(a)/4 POCSO Act, for which Non Bailable Warrant of Arrest was issued against him, therefore being highly apprehensive of imminent arrest, the petitioner has accordingly approached this Court. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner ought to be allowed to present his defence in an atmosphere free from apprehension and the shackles of custodial detention. In this regard, the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation: (2012) 1 SCC 40 , para 21 & 22 was referred to in support of his case. '21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, 'necessity' is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.' 12. The learned counsel has also submitted that even after the charge sheet have been filed, this Court is not prevented from allowing the accused/petitioner to go on pre-arrest bail. The case of Bharat Chaudhary & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Anr: (2003) 8 SCC 77 was cited to bring home this point. 13. The learned counsel has again submitted that if released on bail, the petitioner would fully cooperate with the process and will abide by any condition imposed by this Court. 14. Mr. B. Bhattacharjee, learned AAG on behalf of the State respondent has strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioner by submitting that the conduct of the petitioner does not deserve any leniency by this Court. From the records, it is seen that the petitioner has evaded questioning by the police on several occasions and eventually, he was declared an absconder by the Court, for which an NBWA was issued against him. 15. From the records, it is seen that the petitioner has evaded questioning by the police on several occasions and eventually, he was declared an absconder by the Court, for which an NBWA was issued against him. 15. The contention of the petitioner that he came to know of the case against him only recently for which he has sought the necessary information by way of application for certified copy from the concerned court cannot be accepted, submits the learned AAG as from the papers on record, it is seen that he has applied for certified copies on 01.06.2022 and had received the same on 21.06.2022, but has approached this Court only on 29.09.2022. Therefore, the conduct of the petitioner speaks much about his attitude towards the case against him and as such, for a delayed approach to Court, the petitioner's prayer cannot be accepted. 16. The learned AAG has maintained that the conduct of the petitioner particularly the fact that he has been declared an absconder, he is therefore not entitled to any relief by this Court, even for grant of prearrest bail. 17. In support of his contention, the learned AAG has referred to the case of Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar & Anr: 2021 SCC Online SC 955, para 18, 19, 20, the case of Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab & Anr: 2021 SCC Online SC 854, para 13 & 14 and also the case of Shri. Akramuz Zaman v. State of Meghalaya & 2 Ors: AB. No. 12 of 2021, order dated 21.10.2021 of this Court, para 22 to submit that in the decisions cited above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court has clearly held that in case of an absconder, he is not entitled to relief of pre-arrest bail. It is prayed that this application may be dismissed as devoid of merits. 18. Due consideration has been given to the submission of the parties, the facts as stated above requires no repetition, suffice it to say that the issue involved is the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail by the petitioner/accused. 19. It is prayed that this application may be dismissed as devoid of merits. 18. Due consideration has been given to the submission of the parties, the facts as stated above requires no repetition, suffice it to say that the issue involved is the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail by the petitioner/accused. 19. This Court at this stage is not required to go deep into the evidence and materials on record since the charge sheet has already been filed and the case having been taken up by the competent court, the only issue to be decided is whether under the facts and circumstances, the petitioner/accused is entitled to grant of pre-arrest bail. 20. It cannot be said that the petitioner is totally ignorant of the proceedings against him even at the stage of investigation, since he has averred that the local police authorities have visited his house in search of him on several occasions. It is only when he was declared an absconder and an NBWA was issued against him that he woke up from his stupor. 21. The case cited by the learned AAG has relevance since the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made observations on grant or refusal of pre-arrest bail vis-a-vis an absconder. In the case of Prem Shankar Prasad (supra), the Apex Court has held that normally, when the accused is 'absconding' and declared as a 'proclaimed offender', there is no question of granting anticipatory bail. The other decisions cited by the learned AAG also speaks on the same lines. 22. In view of the above, this Court finds that the petitioner/accused has not been able to make out a case for grant of pre-arrest bail, the same is hereby rejected. 23. Registry to send back the case record. 24. Application disposed of. No costs.