Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010118292025 2025:GAU-AS:11170 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1876/2025 KULADEEP SUTRADHAR S/O- LATE TITHI MOHAN SUTRADHAR, R/O- PAMOHI, NEAR PARIJAT ACADEMY, P.O- GORCHUK, P.S GORCHUK, KAMRUP METRO VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR PARAM HANGKHA KONWAR, MR S BORTHAKUR,MR SAURADEEP DEY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 21.08.2025 Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sharma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Dispur P.S Case No. 652/2024 registered under Section 457/294/506/366/341/323 IPC read with Section 66 (E) of the Information and Technology Act. The FIR dated 27.06.2025 lodged by the victim reveals that after getting acquainted with the petitioner, they became friends and that the petitioner one day came to her house when her husband was not at home and assaulted her and forcefully took her to his rented house, by threatening her daughter and husband and that he established physical relationship with her for the last 6 months. She also stated that her husband informed the police and she was rescued by them. She further stated that the petitioner had opened a fake instagram account and shared her personal photos for which she is afraid she would be fired from her job and that the petitioner had physically assaulted her a number of times in public view. On receipt of the Ejahar, the police registered the case under the aforesaid Sections. Page No.# 3/4 Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offence is not made out against the petitioner in the facts of the said case. He also submits that although charges were framed but the examination of witnesses have not been done and that the victim has also not appeared for giving her statement. Mr. B. Sharma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor however submits that the charge sheet submitted in the present case shows that the petitioner had opened a fake account and shared photograph for which, she has an apprehension that she will be thrown out from her job as stated in the FIR. He also stated that the mobile phone of the petitioner was seized and various photos were found. I have heard the counsels and I have gone through the records. It is reflected in the FIR that the victim was with the petitioner for 6 months and she was attending her office too. The allegation of offence under Section 376 IPC cannot be said to have been made out in view of the present facts. Further, the offence under Section 294,341 & 366 IPC do not picture in the facts of the present case. As such, this Court deems it fit that the petitioner may be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two (2) sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge – 5, Kamrup (M) under the following conditions:- (1) The petitioner will cooperate with the trial and appear before Page No.# 4/4 the Trial Court as and when called for. (2) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence or influence any of the witnesses who are connected with the case. Petition is disposed of. However, the observation made herein will not have any effect with the trial of the case. JUDGE Comparing Assistant