Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010148922025 2025:GAU-AS:11749 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1610/2025 BIDYA BARMAN SON OF SRI BISHESWAR BARMAN R/O NO. 2 KAWADI, P.S. BIJNI DIST. CHIRANG, ASSAM, PIN-783391 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A CHAUDHURY, MR. D BORA,MR. N MAHAJAN,MR. P K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 01.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. A Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for pre-arrest bail in connection with Bijni P.S Case No. 70/2025 registered under Section 69 of Page No.# 2/3 B.N.S, 2023. 3. The F.I.R dated 17.05.2025, lodged by the mother of the victim, reveals that the victim and the petitioner were in relationship and that the petitioner had promised to marry the victim and on the said promise, the victim and the petitioner had gone to different places and that finally, the victim had gone to the place of the petitioner and had stayed there. However, the informant further states that the petitioner had left his place and was staying somewhere else deserting her daughter and that although he had promised to marry her, had not married her till date. 4. Mr. A Choudhury, learnedcounsel for the petitioner submits that the fact of the case reveals thatthe victim and the petitioner were in relationship and the marriage between thevictim and the petitioner were discussed and that the victim stayed at the place of the petitioner. He also placed that the petitioner was enlarged on interim pre-arrest bail vide order dated 18.07.2025 and 5. Mr. B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam had placed the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023, wherein she stated that on the promise of marriage, the petitioner had established sexual relationship with the victim, but subsequently, he refused to marry her. As such, he submits that the offence under Section 69 is attracted in the case. 6. On consideration of the submissions made at the bar and on perusal of the Case record, this Court observes that the F.I.R clearly reveals that the victim and the petitioner were in relationship for a long time and that it was the victim who went to the house of the petitioner and stayed there. 7. In view of the fact that the victim was staying in the house of the petitioner and their relationship were known to their family members and further on the fact that the petitioner has complied with the interim order, Page No.# 3/3 the interim pre-arrest order passed in favour of the petitioner may be made absolute and the conditions provided in the said order dated 18.07.2025 should be complied with by the petitioner, strictly, without any fail. 8. In view of the above, petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant