Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010142352026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1912/2026 SRI BHASKAR BORAH S/O-SRI HAREN BORAH VILL HATIBANDHIA, BARANGABARI, PS.- HELEM, DIST. BISWANATH, ASSAM, PIN-784172 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. L GOGOI, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 30.07.2026 Heard Mr. L. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Helem P.S. Case No. 38/2026, registered under Section 69 of the BNS, Page No.# 2/3 2023. 3. The FIR in connection with which the petitioner is arrayed as an accused and was arrested was lodged by the victim herself on 19.06.2026 stating inter alia that she had developed a love relationship with the petitioner and that during their relationship, they have spent times together and that on 19.05.2026 both of them went to Dholpur and stayed in a homestay. She further stated that during the said stay, the petitioner established physical relations with her on the promise of marriage. She thereafter stated that she became pregnant and when she approached him for marriage, the petitioner expressed his unwillingness to marry. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that marriage was fixed between the petitioner and the victim at one point of time and then later on, they got separated. The learned counsel also submits that it is not the petitioner who had impregnated the victim. 5. On the other hand, Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits on perusal of the case diary that the victim had implicated the petitioner under Section 69 of the BNS in her statement before the police. 6. On consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsels more so in view of the fact that the victim had not stated in the FIR that there was a false promise to marry, from the very inception, this Court finds it fit to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 7. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with Page No.# 3/3 one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned SDJM(M), Gohpur. 8. The direction for bail is further subject to the conditions: (a) The petitioner will not approach the victim at any point of time; (b) The petitioner will appear before the learned trial court as and when called for; (c) The petitioner will not influence the witnesses connected to the case; and (d) The petitioner will not leave the place of his residence without the permission of the learned trial court. 9. However, the observation made in this order will not affect the trial of the case. 10. The bail petition stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant