Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010101272025 2025:GAU-AS:12057 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1109/2025 SRI RIKU DANIEL DOLEY S/O - MR. RAJKISHORE DOLEY, RESIDENT OF- FLAT NO. J1004, SUBHAM HEIGHTS, ADARSHPUR PATH, KAHILIPARA, GUWAHATI-781019,P.S- DISPUR, DISTRICT- KAMRUP(METRO), ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY P.P. ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B K MAHAJAN, MR. A CHAUDHURY,MR N KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR D CHAKRABORTY (INFORMANT),MR. P K SAHARIA(INFORMANT) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date: 03.09.2025 Heard Mr. B. K. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Addl. P.P., representing the State respondent as well as Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the Page No.# 2/8 informant. 2. This application has been filed by the applicant, namely, Riku Daniel Doley, under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 394/2025, registered under Section 316(2)/318(4)/61(2)/89 of BNS, 2023. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.05.2025, the wife of the present applicant, namely, Plabita Gogoi, had lodged an FIR before the Officer In-charge of Dispur Police Station, inter alia, alleging the acts of fraud committed by the accused-petitioner; that in the month of August, 2021, the accused-applicant urgently called her and took her to the State Bank of India, Khanapara Branch without disclosing any reason why she was taken there; that she was asked to sign a heap of papers without allowing her to read the contents therein; that with the aid of Bank Officials, the accused-applicant hurriedly got those papers signed by her; that in the month of December, 2022, in the same manner, the accused- applicant took her to Central Bank Of India, Fancy Bazar Branch and took her signatures in certain papers whereby, the informant was forced to avail loan from the aforesaid Bank; that the loan from SBI, Khanapara Branch was also sanctioned in the name of “Superbike Company”, wherein the informant was shown as the Proprietor; that it was also alleged that the loan from the CBI, Fancy Bazar Branch, was taken in the name of a registered company, namely, “Athena Motors”, where the informant’s name was inserted as the Director by the accused-applicant without her knowledge; that in the last quarter of the year 2022, when the informant was pregnant, she was forced to abort her pregnancy by the accused-applicant, stating that they can have a child later on when their business grows; that the informant started receiving calls from both the Banks intimating her that EMIs of the aforesaid loans were not paid by the accused-applicant and also that he had Page No.# 3/8 stopped responding to their calls; that her husband i.e. the accused-applicant, thereafter, stopped living with her and visited her only occasionally as the accused- applicant started living with another women; that the accused-applicant physically assaulted the informant many times, threatened her of physical injuries and thereby, mentally tortured and abused her; that the accused-applicant mortgaged her gold jewelleries and took a loan in the name of the informant from HDFC Bank, Maligaon Branch and as soon as the money was credited in her account, it was immediately transferred in the Bank account of the accused-petitioner. 4. On the basis of the said FIR, a GD Entry was made by the Police being Dispur P.S. GDE No. 41 dated 21.04.2025 and subsequently, on 02.05.2025, a case being Dispur Police Station Case No. 394/2025, under Sections 316 (2)/318(4)/61(2)/89 of the BNSS, 2023 has been registered against the accused-applicant. 5. The learned counsel for the accused-applicant submitted that the informant is the wife of the accused-applicant and they are having some matrimonial issues between them. He submitted that the allegation of fraud in procuring the bank loans in the year 2021-22, as alleged in the FIR, are totally false and the accused- applicant is in no way involved in the aforesaid offence. He further submitted that the informant is a business lady with a mind of entrepreneurship and she wanted to set up her own business after marriage, though the accused-applicant was initially not agreeable to the aforesaid idea. He submitted that the informant, in spite of being warned about the business risks and difficulties involved in the business by the accused-applicant, she proceeded to open her own business of two wheeler motor cycle showroom of ‘Kawasaki’. Accordingly, in the year 2021, the informant herself incorporated a company, namely, “Superbike Company”, where she is the sole proprietor. He further submitted that the informant had another registered company, namely, “Athena Motors”. Though the aforesaid companies were duly incorporated and registered under the Registrar of Companies, the informant had Page No.# 4/8 falsely alleged in the FIR that the accused-applicant had done everything in incorporating the companies without her knowledge. 6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant that as the informant was in need of a huge capital investment, she with her own talent and channel managed to get certain amounts of the capital that was required, while the remaining was managed by the accused-applicant for her due to his good relationship in the Banks. He submitted that the allegation of taking a loan from the HDFC Bank, Maligaon Branch, by mortgaging her jewellery is totally false as the aforesaid loan was taken by herself by depositing her own jewellery. He has submitted that in view of facing various financial difficulties and not progressing much in her business, the informant started having anxieties, sleep disorders and thereby, mentally stressed to live a normal family life. He submitted that alleging false allegations in the FIR, the informant had stated that she had been forced to undergo an abortion. He submitted that, in fact, after about two months of her pregnancy, the informant starting having complaints of spotted bleeding and severe pain in her lower abdomen. The informant was taken to the doctors of her own choice in Nemcare Hospital, Guwahati, and after examination, it was found that the informant conceived ectopic pregnancy, meaning thereby, the fetus was implanted inside the Fallopian tube instead of Uterus. He submitted that the pregnancy had to be terminated by way of surgery as per the Doctor’s advice. He submitted that after the abortion, the behavior of the informant became intolerant and very aggressive. 7. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the accused- applicant submitted that the whole case of the informant is based on false allegations, wherein, the accused-applicant does not have any connection with the alleged offences. He further submitted that the informant is an educated lady with entrepreneurship instincts and hence, it is not at all believable that the said bank loans could be procured by the accused-applicant without her knowledge. He Page No.# 5/8 further submitted that the incorporation of two companies are vital facts which shows that the informant obtained those loans for incorporating those companies, as she required a huge capital investment. He submitted that when there was distress in non-payment of the aforesaid bank loans, she became restless and started seeking help from her husband, the accused-applicant. He submitted that though initially the accused-applicant helped her on many occasions, still she could not set up her businesses, thereby, became very disoriented. 8. The learned counsel for the accused-applicant further submitted that the Sections under which the Dispur P.S. Case No. 394/2025, was registered, are not made out from the allegations made in the aforesaid FIR. He submitted that Section 89 of the BNS, 2023, is not at all applicable in the instant case, as there was no miscarriage in the instant case without the informant’s consent. He submitted that the abortion that had to be carried out was due to the advice of the Doctor. He submitted that when a woman is diagnosed with “Acute undisturbed left sided ectopic”, she suffers from acute lower abdomen and pelvic pain as well as vaginal bleeding. He submitted that in view of the aforesaid diagnosis, the doctors performed “Left sided Tubectomy done under GA’’ on 01.12.2022 to save the informant. He submitted that the medical summary of the Nemcare Hospital, issued to the informant, clearly revealed the aforesaid facts. Therefore, he submitted that the accusation leveled by the informant that she had been forced to undergo an abortion is not at all correct. In view of the aforesaid, he submitted that Section 89 of BNS is not attracted in the instant case. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that though the aforesaid alleged incident occurred during the year 2021-2022, the FIR was lodged after a period of about 3(three) years, on 20.05.2025. Therefore, he submitted that such delayed filing of the FIR also shows that the allegations are basically false without having any material basis. Page No.# 6/8 10. Based on the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the accused- applicant submitted that considering the nature and factual matrix of the case, as well as the fact that the accused-applicant and the informant are husband and wife and also considering the fact that he is willing to co-operate in the investigation, his custodial interrogation may not be necessary. Therefore, he prays for allowing the accused-applicant the privilege of pre-arrest bail. 11. Per contra, the learned Additional P.P., Mr. R. J. Baruah, submitted that there are material incriminating evidence against the accused-applicant in the Case Diary. He further submitted that the investigation is at a very initial stage, with the Investigating Authority only in the stage of recording the statement of the informant till date. Therefore, he submitted that a perusal of the statement of the informant recorded by the Police, show a prima-facie commission of the aforesaid offences by the accused-applicant. He submitted that the custodial interrogation will be required in the instant case and therefore, he prays that the instant bail application may rejected by this Court. 12. Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the informant submitted that the allegations are of very serious nature, as the accused-applicant had fraudulently procured the loans in the name of the informant and thereby, putting the informant into grave mental stress. He submitted that, in fact, the accused- applicant with a pre-planned object carried the whole activities with a selfish motive to gain financially for himself. He submitted that the accused-applicant often used to mentally harass the informant by threatening her, though they were husband and wife. He further submitted that the abortion had to be carried out because the accused-applicant used to give her various tablets for aborting the child misrepresenting that the same were for getting relief from pain. He submitted that due to the consumption of the aforesaid tablets, the informant suffered from “Acute undisturbed left sided ectopic” and therefore, she had to go through the Page No.# 7/8 abortion. He submitted that due to the aforesaid illegal actions of the accused- applicant, the informant had to bear loans amounting to more than Rs. 3 crores. In view of the aforesaid submissions, he prays that the instant petition for pre-arrest bail to the accused-applicant may be rejected. 13. This Court has heard the parties at length and also gone through the Case Diary that has been submitted by the learned Additional P.P., before this Court. 14. This Court has gone through the Case Diary containing the statements of the informant, the accused-applicant, the house-help and the mother of the informant. The mother stated that the accused-applicant had taken a loan of Rs. 25 lakhs from them in 2020, though there was no mention of the same by the informant in her FIR. In her statement before the Investigating Officer, the house help, namely Pranita Ray stated that she had been working in the family for the last 16 years. She stated that she was aware of auto-mobile business owned by the accused-applicant and the informant. She further stated that both of them used to go out together for business every morning. She stated that there were small marital quarrels between them regarding money. 15. This Court, after perusing the FIR, is surprised that though there are serious allegations against the Bank employees of illegally convincing her to sign in the loan papers, no FIR was lodged against the Bank Officials. No Bank Official was named as accused in the FIR too. 16. This Court has also seen that there was an allegation of forced abortion, materials suggest that surgery form was, prima facie, required for the diagnosis of “Acute undisturbed left sided ectopic”. This aspect suggests applicability of section 89 of the BNS, doubtful in the instant case. 17. In the instant case, the accused-applicant was allowed to go on interim bail and his statement has already been recorded on his appearance before the Page No.# 8/8 Investigating Officer. There is a specific submission by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant that the accused-applicant is co-operating with the investigation and shall be co-operating with the further investigation in the matter. 18. After taking the whole facts into entirety, this Court is of the considered opinion that the interim order passed by this Court on 22.05.2025 may be made absolute. 19. Accordingly, the instant application for pre-arrest bail to the accused- applicant is allowed by making the interim bail absolute with the same conditions. 20. The instant anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. 21. Case Diary submitted before this Court, is to be sent back to the Investigating Officer forthwith. JUDGE Comparing Assistant