Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010158462025 2025:GAU-AS:10800 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1753/2025 BIBEK BRAHMA SON OF ANANTA BRAHMA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SARANGURI, PO BALLAMGURI, PS BIJNI, DISTRICT- CHIRANG, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE SPECIAL PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G BAISHYA, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 13.08.2025 Heard Mr. G. Baishya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Page No.# 2/4 By this application, the petitioner has prayed for pre arrest bail in connection with Kokrajhar P.S. Case No. 59/2025 registered under Section 108 of BNS, 2023 read with Section 67/67B of the IT Act. The FIR dated 22.02.2025 reveals that the petitioner had a love affair with the victim and that on 22.02.2025 i.e. on the day of registration of FIR at around 12:30 pm, the mother of the victim i.e. the informant was informed that the victim had committed suicide by hanging. The informant further stated in the FIR that the petitioner had blackmailed the victim by threatening her that he would leak her private photos and the videos in the social media and on the said threatening the girl committed suicide. On receipt of the said FIR, the police registered the case under the aforesaid sections. The petitioner thereafter, moved a bail application before this Court and vide order dated 11.04.2025, the petitioner was granted interim protection. However, later, on production of the case diary, vide order dated 09.05.2025, the said interim pre arrest bail was vacated and that anticipatory bail was dismissed. The petitioner as such approached this Court for the 2nd time praying for bail. Mr. G. Baishya submits that the petitioner was a young boy of 21 years of age and that the rejection of the bail order on the last occassion was on the ground that he did not co-operate with the investigation. However, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner had gone and given the Page No.# 3/4 statement before the Investigating Officer in compliance of the conditions given in the interim bail order. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that the father of the petitioner is sick and the petitioner is the only person to look after his father and as such, he has prayed that pre arrest bail may be granted to him. Mr. K.K. Parasar however, submits that the ingredients of abetment is writ large in the FIR and he has placed the facts which had immersed during the investigation wherein the police officer had stated that on same day i.e. the day of committing suicide, the petitioner had sent the nude photos and videos of the victim to her mother and when the mother spoke about the same with the victim, the victim on the same day committed suicide. He as such, prayed that no bail should be granted to the petitioner. It is a settled position of law that in cases of abetment, the Apex Court has observed in many decisions that there has to be proper evidence which would show that the accused person has abetted the victim to commit suicide. In the instant case, it is seen from the stipulation made by the police officer in the case diary that on the same day, the petitioner has sent the photographs of the victim to her mother and on questioning by the mother the girl committed suicide on the very same day. As such, the evidence of abetment is established in the instant case. Page No.# 4/4 In view of the same, this petition is dimissed. However, the observation will not have any effect in the trial of the case. JUDGE Comparing Assistant