Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010106832025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1628/2025 HARSH JAIN S/O SUKUMAL ALIAS SUKUMAR JAIN R/O KAMAKHYA APARTMENT, MADHAVDEVPUR, REHABARI, PS PALTANBAZAR, KAMRUP METROI GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN-781008 VERSUS THE THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N UDDIN, MS RICHA JHA,MR B YADAV,MR A K RAI,MR. S MUNIR,MS. K JAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 02.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. S. Munir, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Harsh Jain, who has been detained behind the bars since 13.05.2025 in connection with Latasil P.S. Case No. 50/2025 under Sections Page No.# 2/4 69/89 of BNS. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 11.05.2025, the victim girl had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Latasil Police Station, inter alia, alleging that she was working along with the petitioner in a company, namely, KDM Proptech Private Limited. In the said company, the petitioner was working as director and the informant was working as project consultant. It is also stated in the FIR that a relationship was developed between them after frequent visit by the petitioner to the rented premises of the informant. It is also alleged that while being in the relationship, the petitioner lured the informant to have establish physical relationship on the pretext that he would marry her. It is also stated in the FIR that the informant also got pregnant. However, the petitioner convinced her to terminate her pregnancy and on 06.01.2024, the medical termination of pregnancy was done. It is also alleged in the FIR that in the month of April, 2025, the petitioner informed the first informant that their relationship may not continue any further as his family members are not agreeable to the same. It is alleged in the FIR that the petitioner has indulged in sexual intercourse with the informant by employing deceitful means. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner and the informant were in a romantic relationship and they had physical relationship with each other which was consensual in nature. He submits that it is only because the family members were not agreeable to their marriage, the relationship could not continue. He also submits that the abortion of the informant was not without her consent and but with the consent of the informant. He further submits that the petitioner was remanded to police custody for five days out of total period of detention of 20 days which he has undergone. He also submits that after the police remand of five days, no further Page No.# 3/4 police remand has been sought for by the Investigating Officer. He also submits that the petitioner is ready to co-operate in the investigation and, therefore, prays for allowing the petitioner to go on bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had voluntarily caused the miscarriage of the informant when she was pregnant without her consent. It is also alleged that the petitioner from the initiation of his relationship used deceitful means by giving false promise of marriage he entered into physical relationship with the victim girl. He also submits that the victim girl is mentally disturbed and there is a possibility of the petitioner influencing or threatening the victim girl if he is released on bail. He also submits that some of the vital witnesses like friends of both the parties who know about the incident as well as the doctors who conducted the medical termination of the pregnancy of the informant are yet to be examined and, therefore, he opposes the grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage. 6. I have gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and have perused the case diary of Latasil P.S. Case No. 50/2025. 7. In an offence under Section 69 of BNS, the most vital witness is the victim herself and it appears that her statement under Section 181 as well as Section 183 of BNSS have been recorded and she has also been medically examined. It also appears that the investigation has fairly progressed, though some of the witnesses are yet to be examined. It also appears that there is no indication in the case diary that petitioner has ever tried to influence or threaten the victim girl. 8. Under such circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that if Page No.# 4/4 the petitioner co-operates in the investigation, his further custodial detention may not be necessary for fair completion of the investigation of Latasil P.S. Case No. 50/2025. 9. In view of above, the above named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with one surety of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M) with following condition:- (i) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts of the case before the Investigating Officer; (ii) That the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation. 10. This bail application is accordingly disposed of. 11. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant