Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010116202025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1217/2025 DIPAK @ DEEPAK KUMAR MURARKA S/O- SHYAM MURARKA. R/O- GHAHIGAON, HOKAJAN TEA FACTORY, P.S.- HALEM, DIST.- BISWANATH, ASSAM, PIN-784170 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE LD PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K SINGH, MR D K MEDHI,H BORUAH,P BORUAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 25.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. D. K. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Dipak @ Deepak Kumar Murarka, who is apprehending his Page No.# 2/3 arrest in connection with Helem P.S. Case No. 37/2025 under Sections Page No.# 2/3 64/69/68/351(3) of BNS. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that the victim girl had lodged an FIR on 20.05.2025 before the Officer-in-charge of Helem Police station, inter alia, alleging that the present petitioner had forcefully established physical relationship with the victim girl in the year 2022 and later on she was told that the co-accused Ananda Murarka would marry her. It is also alleged in the FIR that later on the victim girl had developed love relationship with the co-accused Ananda Murarka and who also used to have physical relationship with her. It was also agreed that he would marry her on 04th of May, however, on the date of the proposed marriage, the co-accused did not turn up for the ceremony and when the informant objected, she was threatened by the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the accusations levelled against the present petitioner in the FIR are not true. He submits that the accusations against the present petitioner are of three years prior to the lodging of the FIR that too without mentioning any date. He also submits that the delay of three years in lodging of the FIR, itself cast a doubt. He also submits that the petitioner is ready to co-operate in the investigation. 5. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. 6. The petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Officer and his statement has been recorded. 7. The petitioner has not violated ay bail conditions. 8. Thereby, the interim order dated 02.06.2025 is made absolute under the same terms and conditions. 9. This application stands disposed of. Page No.# 3/3 10. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant